Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

To be considered upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION LIMITED BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Intervention Prices

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he made at the recent meeting of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC to rationalise the Community's intervention prices for skimmed milk and butter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Our main objective in the Council of Ministers was to keep the price increases to an absolute minimum in order to discourage excess milk production in a manner which did not prevent efficient producers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere from increasing their share of the market for milk and dairy products in the Community.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister agree that there is a need to rationalise the approach of the Community's agriculture policy in order to allow for variations in the cost of production in individual countries? What proposals did the Government put forward at the meeting or what do they have in mind to put forward at subsequent meetings?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will know that the system of green currencies means that the prices paid to producers in various countries are different. In the vast majority of countries, the decision on this year's price-fixing has meant a fall in real terms in the producer's milk price and this should help to reduce the structural surplus. The United Kingdom butter subsidy was an important step towards disposing of the surplus sensibly.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: My hon. Friend referred yesterday to butter ships. Is there any chance of having these butter ships operating off this country to the advantage of our consumers?

Mr. Strang: The measures that we secured at the Council, which involved a substantial butter subsidy for United Kingdom consumers, are an important


step in the right direction and are probably better than butter ships.

Mr. Spearing: Whatever may be the wish, does not my hon. Friend agree that the increased cost of the food package, according to Press reports, is 400 million units of account? Will he confirm that figure and comment on reports in the Press on Wednesday that the long-term future of the green currencies is in doubt? If those reports are true, will not this increase prices still further?

Mr. Strang: The increase in the Community budget was a result of the changes made to the Commission's original proposals. One major element in this increase was the decision that all non-delivery premiums to encourage dairy producers to cease production were to be wholly financed by FEOGA. There are only proposals in relation to the green currencies. No decision has yet been taken.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in renegotiating the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current position of the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I refer the hon. Members to the statement I made yesterday.

Mr. Wall: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on obtaining international recognition of conservation zone in the North Sea and elsewhere, but is he aware that this country's distant-water industry is virtually killed and that the inshore industry is likely to follow the same path unless we get an exclusive zone of 50 miles? These views were put strongly to Mr. Gundelach at Hull recently. What action is the Minister taking?

Mr. Silkin: The whole question of the fishing industry is vital to this country. That point was made to Mr. Gundelach not only on his visit to Hull but by a deputation from Scotland which saw him a few days ago. We have reiterated that fact ourselves and intend to go on doing

so, particularly at the Fisheries Council meeting which has been called for 27th June.

Mr. Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that at the next Council meeting the Government intend to stand firm on the need for an exclusive fishing zone of 50 miles, because this is so important for the inshore fishing industry of this country, not least in Devon and Cornwall?

Mr. Silkin: We have made our position clear and I hope that at the Council meeting next month we shall be able to put on the table absolutely definite proposals. I have no doubt that they will be fully in accordance with the wishes of the fishing industry.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the simple and straightforward demand for extending control over a 50-mile limit would have the overwhelming support of both sides of the House and the country as a whole? Does he recognise that were it not for the fact that the Conservative Party has taken us into the EEC, control would have been extended to 200 miles?

Mr. Silkin: I do not want to go over old battles at this stage. It seems that there are new battles ahead. However, my hon. Friend has put forward an important point which must be recognised again and again. What we must do is to claw back something that was given away. That is a difficult and tough task to achieve, but it is an achievement that we hope we shall be able to realise.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the frequent reports that he makes to us on these matters and that we appreciate what he is doing? Is he aware that the Scottish fishermen who went to Brussels at the beginning of the week are boiling with rage over the negative attitude of the Common Market towards what they regard as their just claims? Does he recognise that their temper is not helped by the report today that Norway is cutting the quotas available for United Kingdom vessels, thus imposing even further strains and difficulties on the Scottish fishing fleet?

Mr. Silkin: I thought that the Scottish fishermen behaved with absolute distinction. Everyone commented on the


tremendous way in which they presented their case. Even if they are boiling with rage, they put their case reasonably. I pay my tribute to them.
The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised in respect of Norway is representative of the whole difficulty of the position in which we now find ourselves. As regards distant-water fishing and the fact that we are not in negotiation alone, clearly that is a matter that has to be taken into account when we come to review fishing within the waters that are under our sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting before the House of Commons before he goes to Europe the proposals that he intends to put before the Council of Ministers? Is he aware that the House would be interested to know whether his proposals will contain any reference to the closing—perhaps permanently—of some of the breeding grounds and the banning of methods of fishing that are simply plain greedy?

Mr. Silkin: The points inherent in the right hon. Gentleman's question are extremely sound. They are points that we have made and will continue to make. Certainly I should wish to give the House as clear an indication of what I have in mind as it is possible to give. I shall do my best to ensure that the House is kept fully informed.

Sheepmeat Exports

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the access of sheepmeat from the countries of Great Britain to the EEC.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I recognise that the cessation of national import arrangements in the EEC could be beneficial to our sheepmeat trade, but in spite of these barriers United Kingdom exports to the EEC have increased by some 50 per cent. since accession.

Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that feeling is running quite high among sheep farmers in Wales that the Minister and the Government are not putting up the sort of fight that they should be mounting for a regulation on

sheepmeat in the EEC? At least, they are doing nothing comparable with what the Irish are doing. In future, will the hon. Gentleman put up such a fight?

Mr. Bishop: I think the House will know that we have made our position very clear. There are four basic points. First, we want to safeguard producers and ensure that there is confidence in respect of production. Secondly, we want to ensure that there is a regime which provides reasonable prices for consumers. Thirdly, we want to ensure that British exports can continue and increase. Finally, we want to ensure that there can be the possibility of continued access for New Zealand.

Mr. Powell: Will the Government keep in mind the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom and not only those of Great Britain?

Mr. Bishop: Yes. I think that that is apparent in the general guidelines I have just spelt out.

Mr. Marten: Are not the barriers that the French are putting up disobeying the de Cheysson judgment in the European Court? I may not be right about that, but if that is so will the Minister consider doing what everybody else seems to be doing in the Common Market—namely, taking the French to the European Court?

Mr. Bishop: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the French are already being taken to court by the Irish. Although we recognise some of the undesirable effects of some of the features of the French import arrangements, especially as we are the largest exporter of sheepmeat in the Community, we want to achieve a solution that will safeguard the interests of all countries.

Food Additives

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from consumers about the removal of artificial colour from manufactured food; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strang: The Food Additives and Contaminants Committee is at present carrying out a full review of our regulations controlling the use of colouring matters in food. The committee has


received representations from consumer organisations, and these are being taken into account along with those from other organisations. The committee is making good progress with this complex review, but it is too soon yet to say when the report will be published.

Mrs. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In the meantime, in view of the growing public and medical concern about the vast amount of artificial colouring in food, all of which is expensive and unnecessary and none of which is really healthy, will he consider initiating discussions with food manufacturers with a view to trying to phase out artificial colouring, at least from baby food and food that is mainly consumed by children?

Mr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend's basic contention that this is a matter for particular concern as it affects food consumed by babies and children. The committee is giving special attention to this matter. I reassure my hon. Friend by pointing out that the committee is free at any time during the review to draw attention to any colourings that it would like removed forthwith.

Mr. Nelson: Will the committee be considering the regulations that at present prevent his Department from publicising a good deal of the information made available by food manufacturers on food additives? Will he bear in mind that there are about 35,000 additives of different sorts and that the United States has banned the use of Brown FK, which is used in 99 per cent. of kippers and in many other sweets and food products in this country? Will he consider giving early consideration to this matter when the subject comes up for review when the EEC directive permitting its use ends next year?

Mr. Strang: I shall bring that point to the attention of the committee. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the committee has a high standing not only in the United Kingdom but internationally. I am sure that he will respect its findings and judgment.

Milk Marketing Board

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food when he will next meet the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board.

Mr. John Silkin: I expect to do so in the near future.

Mr. Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he meets Sir Richard Trehane or his successor he will be told in plain terms that the dairy farmers are totally dissatisfied with the price determination that he has recently announced? Will he explain to Sir Richard or his successor, and to the House, how there will be a mere 5 per cent. increase to the farmer between now and the end of the year when the dairy farmer has had to meet additional costs amounting to 20 per cent.? is he not aware that our dairy farmers could make a substantial saving to our balance of payments if they produced more milk?

Mr. Silkin: I am certain that the guaranteed price for milk was the right guarantee to give in the circumstances up to the end of the transitional stage, As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the question of what happens after 1st January is still to be played for. I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement in the near future. When dairy farmers consider the situation, they will have to take into account the final position—namely, what happens after 1st January. I should think that that is the factor that is concerning them most. I hope to end that uncertainty as soon as possible with something that I hope will be worth waiting for.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for over 40 years the Milk Marketing Board has provided good value for consumers and producers alike without subsidy or surplus to any degree? Will he explain why the board may have to face a court action in the European Community about its existence? If that is the case, does he understand that it explains why some of us think that the CAP is quite detestable? Will he make this clear to his follow Agriculture Ministers when he meets them in Brussels?

Mr. Silkin: As for the Milk Marketing Boards, I very much share my hon. Friend's view—I think it is a view that the whole House shares—of the great value they have been to this country. I believe, incidentally, that they could be of great value also to other countries if


they cared to adopt the system, as I told the House a few weeks ago. I cannot remember when it was. [An HON. MEMBER: "Last week."] No, I think it was before that. I have spoken to Mr. Gundelach and I have his assurance that he is investigating sympathetically the whole situation. I was encouraged to notice that in his speech at Cirencester last week he twice said and underlined that he had become convinced of the value of our Milk Marketing Boards.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: What confidence has the right hon. Gentleman that he can overcome the stiff-necked opposition of the bureaucrats of Brussels to the Milk Marketing Board as a national institution cutting right across the whole purpose and objective of the EEC?

Mr. Silkin: Confidence in stiff-necked bureaucrats, wherever they may be, is something that requires a lot more patience, perhaps, then some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members possess. But we shall certainly do our best to overcome the reactions of any stiff-necked bureaucrats who may stand in the way of something that is, quite frankly, a sensible and valuable arrangement.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister appreciate that everyone on this Bench realises the difficult job that he has to do vis-à-vis Europe? But will he assure the House that the Milk Marketing Boards are sacrosanct and will not have their rights traded away as part of some larger deal or package?

Mr. Silkin: As long as I am Minister, I have not the slightest intention of trading those rights away.

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only the producer, important as his task is, is concerned with the Milk Marketing Board, but that many thousands of workers in the milk industry in this country are looking to the Milk Marketing Board for the continuance of their jobs? They are very concerned indeed and very worried. I speak with authority as an ex-trade union officer who used to organise those people. Will my right hon. Friend give assurances to those workers that the Milk Marketing Board will not be allowed to be disbanded by the despots in Brussels and that the security of these workers in the milk industry will continue?

Mr. Silkin: I have on many occasions assaured the House, and I willingly reassure the House today, that it is my intention to fight to victory—I was going to say to the end—for the Milk Marketing Boards. I not only accept my hon. Friend's point about those who work in the industry. I also accept the absolutely vital necessity of preserving the liquid milk round.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister be able to tell the present Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board that he has been telling his colleagues in Brussels that we need to extend milk marketing boards within Europe? Secondly, will he bear in mind that some of us feel that all the experience and wisdom of the present Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board should be used in the future, even if he retires from the board now?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he has paid to the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. I have tremendous admiration for him. He has done a very good job. As to extending the boards to other countries, particularly to countries inside the Common Market, I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me to be an experience that we have which could be of use to other countries.

Mr. Jopling: Before the Minister meets the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, will he recall what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said earlier—that it is absolutely crucial to clear up the important matter of what the milk price will be after 1st January? Will he undertake that he will have made an announcement before he meets the Chairman of the MMB? Will he understand that otherwise it is nonsense to make the sort of statement he has been making—that the milk price which he announced recently only for the next seven months will mean expansion under the White Paper targets, which clearly it will not?

Mr. Silkin:: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on his deductions, but I absolutely agree with him on the urgency of making a statement about the months that will follow transition. There is only one reason why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking for which he asks. That is, that I am quite


likely to meet the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board very shortly—it may be as I walk out of the House on this occasion. What I will undertake is to make a statement at the earliest opportunity.

Potato Plantings

Mr. Banks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the level of plantings of potatoes for the coming season.

Mr. Bishop: It is too early to make a firm forecast of the level of potato plantings, but the present indications are that the 1977 target area of 210,000 hectares will be achieved and may be exceeded.

Mr. Banks: Why was the Minister so slow in announcing this year's guaranteed price? Does he appreciate that many farmers had already planted before the announcement? Does he further appreciate that this price is considered to fall below the general level of production costs and that most farmers have completely lost confidence in him over this?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member will be, or should be, aware of the complications of this review as we come to the end of transition. I remind him that, as I have just said, a great deal of confidence has already been shown by the plantings to date. We are satisfied that the target will be achieved. The hon. Gentleman will be aware also of the fact that the new price is 16 per cent. above last year's level and that this takes into account costs since then.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The Minister has said a lot today and in the debate last week about the future of the Milk Marketing Board. It is of great concern to potato farmers, because they also have a marketing board. What is the future of the Potato Marketing Board?

Mr. Bishop: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter is under consideration, but we still want to make sure that in the new régime which may follow the end of transition it is recognised that the confidence of the producer to plant the required acreage and to achieve the target at a reasonable price will be fundamental.

Mr. Newens: Has my hon. Friend recognised that many potato producers

are deeply concerned about the possibility that the Potato Marketing Board might be wound up as a result of our commitment to Europe? Will he make a clear statement, as his right hon. Friend has just done on the Milk Marketing Board, that there is no intention whatsoever of doing this? If he does, it will meet with very considerable approval on the part of those who produce potatoes in this country.

Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that we have made our policy on boards of all sorts dealing with hops, milk and potato marketing very clear. We want to maintain the essential functions which a board should pursue. As to the matter of future confidence, we have said that a price guarantee will be fulfilled for the coming crop as a whole.

Food and Drink Manufacturing Industries

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the means of representation to the EEC Commission available to the food manufacturing industry.

Mr. Strang: Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom's Food and Drink Industries Council plays an active part in the Commission for the Food and Drink Manufacturing Industries, which is the trade body that the EEC Commission consults on matters of interest to these industries.

Mr. Mills: Yes, but does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that some of us think that he does not really understand the very grave difficulties of some of the food manufacturers, particularly concerning pigmeat, sausages and bacon? Will he see that far better representation is made on their behalf in Europe on these matters as we do not want to see the destruction of that very big and important industry?

Mr. Strang: I agree that it is a very big and important industry and contributes in a very major way to the United Kingdom balance of payments. With regard to pigmeat, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government are doing everything they possibly can in this connection. We hope that the draft regulations may form a basis for solving that particular problem.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike Opposition Members,


we believe that he understands the problems of the food manufacturing industry, and we would like to see rather more discussion openly of the purely negative taxes which are consistently being applied by the EEC to all forms of food manufacturing, whether it be isoglucose or any other form of manufactured food? My hon. Friend is protecting the interests of the consumer. Will he explain to Opposition Members that it is part of their task to support him in this?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is on a fair point. As for the proposed isoglucose levy—and I wish to point out that we were the only member State which pressed this—although the Government were successful in reducing the maximum levy to 50 per cent., we are still opposed in principle to any isoglucose levy.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Mr. John Silkin: On 20th and 21st June. The Community Agriculture Ministers are, however, to have an informal meeting in London next Tuesday.

Mr. Canavan: Until such time as the CAP is completely scrapped, could not some of the smart Alecs who sold us down the river in the Common Market steer some of these German butter boats up the Forth or Clyde so that some of our own impoverished housewives can get their share of this butter mountain comprising 6,000 tons of cheap butter, which has been distributed by these ships to a total of 3 million passengers?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the better way of handling the matter would be to see that the butter mountain is consumed inside the nations of the Community. One very good way of doing this might be to have a butter subsidy to enable the consumer to obtain the butter at a very much cheaper price. That method of dealing with the problem would appear to be a very much better way of handling the matter than to have 3 million men and women each grasping two kilograms of butter in their hot little hands.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that Commissioner Tugendhat said that there

must be a more effective way of representing the taxpayer and the consumer in the settlement of agricultural prices? Will he convey to the next meeting of Agriculture Ministers that that view has widespread support in this country, even though a dwindling band of Euro fanatics would seek to deny it?

Mr. Silkin: Something on the lines of that view has already been conveyed to my colleagues in the Common Market Council of Agriculture Ministers. On the subject of Commissioner Tugendhat, there are other items of which perhaps neither the hon. Gentleman nor I would wholeheartedly approve.

Mr. Molloy: When my right hon. Friend meets the Council of Ministers, will he point out the grave apprehensions of Members on all sides of the House about EEC policy, intervention and directives? Does he not agree that those of us who pointed out these misgivings before we entered the EEC were in the minority but now comprise the overwhelming majority?

Mr. Silkin: I think that by now the House must be well aware of my feelings about the common agricultural policy—feelings which, I am glad to say, I share with a growing number of hon. Members throughout the House.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the aims of the CAP remain absolutely acceptable and respectable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The problem is that those aims have been too widely forgotten. The right hon. Gentleman has missed many opportunities of putting matters right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Without requiring advice from Hon. Members below the Gangway, on the Government side, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he reconciles his advocacy of a butter subsidy now with the Government's recent decision to abolish food subsidies.

Mr. Silkin: One of the major purposes on the butter subsidy seeks to achieve one of the amendments of the CAP which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to undertake. I may have missed opportunities in the past. During the next seven years or so I intend not to miss any other opportunities.
As for the butter subsidy, one of its main purposes was to chip away at helping to destroy the butter mountain. There is no butter mountain in this country, nor is there a liquid milk lake or a structural surplus in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman should know that.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Minister answer the question: how does he reconcile his advocacy of a continuing butter subsidy with the decision of his Cabinet colleagues to abolish food subsidies?

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I had better explain the matter twice. There is no food structural surplus in this country. The aim of the butter subsidy was to chip away at the butter mountain—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) can conduct his own seminar standing up in due course, but he cannot do it sitting down. As for the butter mountain or any other structural surplus, I believe that the best way of getting rid of such surpluses is at the price end—and that is by seeing that it is consumed within the Community. I repeat that there are no structural surpluses of food in this country. Therefore, the food subsidy is not of that major immediate importance.

Sheepmeat Régime

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards the establishment of an interim sheepmeat régime within the EEC.

Mr. Bishop: The Council of Agriculture Ministers has not reconsidered the proposals for an interim sheepmeat régime since October 1976, although technical discussions have continued.

Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that the news that so little activity is taking place is most disappointing? Will he appreciate the problems of those who produce fat lambs if they do not know whether the French market will be open? Will he give some assurance today which will give confidence for the future, and will he press the matter more urgently than he appears to be doing at present?

Mr. Bishop: We recognise the urgency of the situation. In the beginning we were not very happy about the régime coming into effect at all, but I appreciate

the hon. Member's point. He will be aware that production methods in marketing in the Community are diverse, which adds to the problem. In the meantime, the Government have given renewed confidence to the industry in respect of increases in the wool and fat sheep guarantees.

Mr. Watt: Is the Minister aware that as long as there is no sheepmeat régime there is an unfair discrimination in favour of the original Six and a strong levy on sheepmeat for new entrants? Is it not grossly unfair that in what is called a common agricultural policy there is not a common policy to all the Nine but preference given only to the Six?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our policy aimed at liberalising trade within the Community. We are the largest importer, exporter and consumer of mutton and lamb, and we want to ensure that there is freedom for our people to export to the Community if they wish to do so. I would also point out that home consumption is a major factor at the moment.

Food Production

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the light of the outcome of the recent EEC negotiations, if he is satisfied with progress in implementing the policy set out in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

Mr. Strang: The outcome of the CAP price negotiations is a good one for our producers, who have every reason to look forward with confidence. With reasonable weather, I expect to see a major recovery in production this year and good progress in line with the aims in "Food from Our Own Resources".

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be received with surprise by the farming industry? In the light of the recent EEC negotiations, does he not realise that what is required in this country is a move aimed at bringing the green pound more into line with the value of the pound sterling? Does he not agree that if the green pound is not brought more into line with the value of the pound sterling there will not be sufficient money available for investment in the British farming industry?

Mr. Strang: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's observations. If we take into account the increase in the common price and the small devaluation of the green pound, and above all the two transitional steps, it is clear that the support prices effected by the CAP settlement were raised adequately to meet the needs of producers in the forthcoming year.

Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the basic contradiction we face in seeking to expand the dairy industry is that the end price creates surpluses in Europe and at the same time inhibits production here? Does not the right way forward lie in reducing levies on imported cereals in order to reduce costs to our producers?

Mr. Strang: The Government are in favour of more liberal policies on cereals, but there would have to be some protection on the lines that existed before we joined the Community.

Mr. Jopling: How can the Minister make such complacent expressions of hope for future agricultural expansion when we have seen in the Ministry's own figures a tremendous decline in the numbers of young animals coming into breeding herds in the beef, dairy and pig sectors?

Mr. Strang: The hon. Member is far too pessimistic. He and others are too heavily influenced by the severe drought last year. If we have reasonable weather in the forthcoming season, the situation should improve.

Mr. Welsh: Which sectors are up to the target set in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" and which are not? Does the Minister accept that falling food production figures are directly related to the price package that he negotiated in the EEC?

Mr. Strang: Since the hon. Member comes from Angus, he may not be aware sufficiently of the enormous impact of last year's drought. Every agricultural commodity was adversely affected by the drought. The major factor in increased agricultural costs was the drought.

Pigs (Price Calculation)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the

Confederation des Organisations Professionels Agricoles requesting a recalculation of the monetary compensatory amounts in respect of pigs.

Mr. John Silkin: The praesidium of the confederation has made no representations to the Council during the period of the United Kingdom Presidency requesting such a recalculation. In its reactions to the Commission's proposals on the fixing of prices for certain agricultural products for the marketing year 1977–78, however, COPA notes that the United Kingdom delegation had indicated that it could not accept any increase in the basic price for pigmeat in the absence of a satisfactory solution on the method of calculation of the monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not depressing that COPA, notwithstanding that until quite recently it had the distinction of having Sir Henry Plumb as its chairman, has not shown itself to be more alert to the problems of the British pig farmer? Does not the situation highlight the fact that where we have national difficulties they should be susceptible to national solutions?

Mr. Silkin: I find myself in a great measure of agreement on this point, particularly in the pigmeat sector and also in the dairy sector.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when Commissioner Gundelach came to Cirencester recently he gave little encouragement to Gloucestershire farmers that the Commission was prepared to act on the difficulties experienced by pig farmers in this country? Is he aware that hon. Members on this side of the House who are conversant with the problems of farmers would give him all the support he needed to take further unilateral action if the negotiations, which are still six weeks away, were not successful in helping the pig industry?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful for the support I have received for the measures necessary to help our own pig producers. The recalculation of the pigmeat mcas will come up as a proposal and will be on the agenda at the meeting on 20th and 21st June.

Mr. Peyton: The fact that the Commission is making a proposal at last is


welcome, but will the Minister explain, since he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), what he intends to do about it?

Mr. Silkin: As the right hon. Member must be aware, I have introduced unilateral aid for pig producers which is being challenged in the courts. An interim injunction is due to be heard either tomorrow or in the next few days. Clearly, in the first place we must await the result of the court hearing. Secondly, the Government have given some consideration to what might happen in any event.

Mr. Freud: The whole House accepts that the Minister and his colleagues have worked very hard for the pig producers. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that unless there is a chance of the unilateral action being accepted this would be a good and sensible time for him to make an honest and apposite statement and to level with the pig farmers, who are desperately worried about their financial future?

Mr. Silkin: I am aware of what the hon. Member has said. When there is something absolutely definite to say, I shall make as clear a statement as I can in the House to help pig farmers to plan their future.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend resist the move coming from the Commission automatically to readjust mcas irrespective of the subject being discussed? Does he not agree that if mcas can be triggered off by figures that bear no relation to the individual product we shall be in very great trouble?

Mr. Silkin: The proposals to which my hon. Friend refers are not those which will come before the Council in June. It is expected that they will come up sometime in October. One of the interesting features about the proposals for the meeting on 20th and 21st June is that they suggest a different method of calculating green currencies based on all the currencies of the Nine. That is something which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) has advocated on more than one occasion. It will be interesting to see what view the Council takes on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19th May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Before I reply, I remind the House that in accordance with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee I am not grouping indirect Questions in the first 10, of which today there are seven. But this is, of course, a transitional policy.
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Ward: Before his Cabinet meeting this morning, was my right hon. Friend able to act on the commitment that he gave, with other Heads of Government, on 8th May to take action to eliminate improper practices in trade and international commerce? Has he been able to examine the allegation about the British Leyland affair which appears in today's papers? Will he authorise an inquiry and assure the House of his intention to supervise any action that is needed in that matter?

Mr. Speaker: There is a Private Notice Question on that subject.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to anticipate anything that you might say. I understand that there is a Private Notice Question on this matter.
As for international action. I did not refer to Leyland or to anybody else in this particular connection. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, if he is called to make a statement later.
I remind the House of the statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when it was made clear that
The Government will accordingly be pressing in appropriate international organisations for measures to be taken wherever possible to deal with this evil."—[Official Report, 18th May May 1976; Vol. 911, c. 1214.]
That statement of Government policy—and there is much more to it—preceded


the Downing Street Summit. I therefore pressed at the Summit with the United States and other countries, for references of this sort to be incorporated. It is a matter which properly causes grave concern so far as the general policy of the Government is concerned. We do not tolerate such practices and they must be rooted out, although a heavy responsibility rests upon the host countries themselves.

Mrs. Thatcher: As this matter will be dealt with later, may I raise with the Prime Minister a question which is causing concern to hon. Members on all sides of the House? As it is nearing the time when the arrangements for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference must be finalised, can the Prime Minister say whether he has yet reached a decision about whether President Amin will attend that conference? In asking him that question, may I make it quite clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I believe, many other hon. Members—although I cannot speak for them—feel that it would be utterly repugnant if President Amin were to attend the conference? We feel that that is the view of the British people as a whole.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged for the way in which the right hon. Lady framed her question. As she knows, this is a matter which is of very great concern to the Government. As I indicated some weeks ago, we have been giving careful and continuing consideration to this matter. Indeed, in conjunction with certain Ministers I gave consideration to it again this morning. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government broke off diplomatic relations with President Amin a year ago. The latest evidence from the International Commission of Jurists confirms us in our view that we were right to have no relations with that régime, although we have nothing but good will for the people of Uganda.
As regards making an announcement on Her Majesty's Government's position, I should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would not press me to do that. We should like to choose any moment when we have to make a statement that we think would be in accord with the best interests of the Commonwealth as a whole—although, having said that, I want to make it clear that any decision that is

taken will not be one in which I wish to involve other Commonwealth members. It will be for Her Majesty's Government to reach a conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Michael Stewart: During my right hon. Friend's discussions with his colleagues today, will he do his best to expedite the introduction of a Bill for direct elections to the European Parliament, which was promised us in the Queen's Speech?

The Prime Minister: I fear that I have no further statement to make on that matter at this particular moment. As soon as there is something that can be said, an announcement will, of course, be made.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Townsend—Question No. Q2.

Mr. Townsend: Are the Government preparing to increase—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a bit of a short cut—although it might save the time of the House.

Mr. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19th May.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would have been right last week, but not this week, because under the new arrangements I now have to say to him "I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward)."

Mr. Townsend: Are the Government preparing to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms?

The Prime Minister: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has seen the communiqué that was issued about the intentions of member Governments of the Alliance from 1979 to 1984. No doubt he will also have noted the qualifications that are related to that proposal. It will be the qualifications that will have to be taken into account as well as the commitment when the 1979 budget is considered.

Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm this afternoon that it is still the Government's intention to legislate on


industrial democracy in the next Session of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: The discussions now taking place with the CBI and the TUC have not reached the advanced stage that I had hoped on this matter. It is the Government's desire that we should be able to legislate on this matter, but we need to clear the ground first, and so far we have not been able to do so.

Mr. David Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time today to consider the extraordinary reports that have suggested that non-NUJ journalists may in future be barred from Press conferences at the Labour Party conference or at Labour Party headquarters? Although these are not matters for which the right hon. Gentleman is answerable to the House, will he make it clear that there will never be any such power at a Press conference that he gives as Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I have not seen the reports, nor had I heard of them. I saw a report about the TUC; I did not see any other report. If that was what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to, yes, I saw that; but I have not seen any other reports. If it is the TUC, I would agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that in the first instance it is probably better that the TUC itself should sort this out. I would rather agree with him—although he did not actually say this, but I guess that this is the implication of what he had in mind—that we shall not clear these things by making ex cathedra statements at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 19th May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).

Mr. Roberts: Has the Prime Minister read Press reports of his speech at Great Yarmouth yesterday? Will he confirm that it is still the Government's intention to seek a single-figure percentage rate of increase in wages in phase 3?

The Prime Minister: I did read the reports. I regret that they were not full enough to indicate to the country at large

that I received a standing ovation from the trade union delegates at the end of my speech. However, on the substance of the speech, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are in discussions with the TUC I should prefer not to go into further details about the exact arrangements that the Government would like to see.

Mr. Molloy: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a vital element in the success of an incomes policy is firm price control? Will he take every opportunity to expose the double standards of the official Opposition and explain to people that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and many of her acolytes on the Opposition Front Bench are against price controls yet they leap to the Dispatch Box, with their eyes blazing with insincerity—[Interruption.]—to complain about price increases?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that the best way to restrain increased prices and increasing prices is to keep down the rate of inflation. [Interruption.] That is what the Government's policy is based on. We attack inflation as the source of all these evils. As regards prices, I have no reason to depart from the estimate that I have often given at the Dispatch Box about the future course of prices in the next eight or nine months.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Prime Minister find time today to reprove the three Ministers who took time off from their duties, a most unfitting action, to go and join a picket line?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would go and do the same thing. With his past history as a member of Her Majesty's Forces and a very gallant officer, I would expect him to stand for decency and fair play in relations between men and management.

Mr. Atkinson: Has the Prime Minister had a chance today to read the reports this morning which have set out the conditions under which the Liberal Party now wishes to encourage the trade unions to conclude an agreement with the Government on a phase 3 wage policy? Will he tell the House whether this agreement to which the Liberal Party now refers


was in fact included in the original discussions that it had with the Government when it concluded the agreement of support earlier this year? If that was not the case and if such discussions were never included at that time, is it not something to be deplored that the Liberal Party now wishes to include this further element as a condition on which it is prepared to support the Government in the future?

The Prime Minister: I regret that I have not had time to study these matters. However, it is open to the Liberal Party, and, indeed, any other party in the House, to raise many matters with the Government as to the best way in which they think that phase 3, or anything else, can be conducted. I shall be happy to meet them and discuss matters with them.

Mr. Forman: Reverting to the Prime Minister's answer to an earlier question, are we to take it that the Government's view on how to reduce inflation is to reduce inflation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Broadly, I think that that is right. I hope that there is no disposition in any part of the House to challenge my statement that if inflation comes down prices will not go up so fast.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Will the Prime Minister take time among his official engagements to shed a tear over the demise of the devolution Bill for Scotland and Wales—[An HON. MEMBER: "Crocodile tears."]—be they crocodile tears or not—and will he tell us when he intends to reintroduce a measure for devolution for Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Discussions have been conducted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with the other parties, including the Scottish National Party. Those discussions, I hope, are now coming to an end.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: We are having no discussions.

The Prime Minister: Well, that is your fault.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not suggested that it is my fault.

The Prime Minister: Never, Mr. Speaker. It would not even cross my mind.
However, as I think the House and all the parties know, my right hon. Friend offered discussions to all parties in the House. If any party chose not to take up that offer, that is not my right hon. Friend's responsibility. But there will be a review of the conclusions of these negotiations in due course.

Mr. Ashley: With regard to inflation, does the Prime Minister agree that, although most trade union leaders have been moderate, the demands by one or two for 30 per cent. wage increases are as irresponsible as the daily demands by Conservative Members and that it would be as damaging and dangerous to concede those demands as it would be to concede the demands made every day by Conservatives?

The Prime Minister: I made the position clear at the TSSA conference which I visited yesterday that wage claims or settlements in the region of 30 per cent. by those who have the industrial muscle would certainly make it almost impossible, if not impossible, for us to reach the kind of inflation levels that we seek for this country next year. It is right to point out to the House that the progress made with regard to the decline in interest rates is probably of even greater significance than some increases in pay in relation to real standards of life for the people.

BRITISH LEYLAND

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the approval by the Chairman of the National Enterprise Board of payments by British Leyland to individuals contrary to the stated policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Erie G. Varley): The Government are totally opposed to any form of bribery or corruption. The Government will not tolerate any cover-up of these matters. The House will have seen that the National Enterprise Board has today stated that no such letter as is alleged by the Daily Mail to have been sent by


Lord Ryder exists. I myself have not discussed any of the matters alleged in this Press report at any time with Lord Ryder or corresponded with him about them.
I have spoken to Lord Ryder today and asked him to return to London immediately to take charge of the inquiries which the National Enterprise Board and British Leyland are setting in hand. I have asked the NEB to report to me urgently the outcome of these inquiries and I shall then consider what further statement I can make to the House.

Sir K. Joseph: Is the Secretary of State asserting that all the allegations published this morning in the Daily Mail are incorrect? Recognising the different practices in different countries and the painful dilemma presented to trading organisations in some countries abroad, is the Secretary of State totally contradicting the allegation, as described in the Daily Mail this morning, that he has approved any such practice by the NEB? Will the Secretary of State answer?

Mr. Varley: What I said is that the NEB has put out a statement today and has told me that no such letter exists. That is where I want to leave it. I have asked Lord Ryder to come back and take charge of this inquiry and in due course I want to report further to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked about my own personal position and whether I "nodded it through", as it says in the Daily Mail today. The answer is that I have not nodded anything through. I reject and repudiate such practices. I could never in any conceivable circumstances give them my approval or even discuss them or consider them except to repudiate them. I have never discussed them with Lord Ryder or anyone else or corresponded with him or anyone else about them.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if this letter is proved to be a forgery—and we have no reason to think otherwise—this whole knocking campaign against British Leyland will be seen to be not just a campaign on the part of the Daily Mail but yet another of a whole series of deliberate slanders

against the Government and their Ministers?

Mr. Varley: What I am saying—and what I am going to stand by today, intending to go no further—is that the NEB has put out a statement that no such letter exists. I have asked for inquiries to be made. I have asked Lord Ryder to take charge of them, and in due course I shall come to the House again and report.

Mr. Grylls: Would the Secretary of State not agree that it might be fairer to him, to the NEB and to British Leyland if there were to be a proper judicial court of inquiry into this matter so that people could see the facts for themselves? Should not this be done in a proper open way rather than through an internal departmental inquiry?

Mr. Varley: What we have to do in the first instance is let the inquiries within British Leyland and the NEB proceed. In due course I shall consider the matter further and report to the House.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: While one can understand the Secretary of State endorsing Lord Ryder's decision to return and take responsibility for these matters, as he has to do under the NEB guidelines, can the Secretary of State assure us that Lord Ryder was returning of his own volition and was not instructed to do so by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Varley: I discussed the matter with Lord Ryder over the telephone a short time before I came into the House. I informed him as a matter of courtesy that, as is natural, a Private Notice Question had been put down. I said that there was a great deal of speculation about the matter and that it would be in his best interests if he were to come back and take charge of the inquiries. It was not a question of asking him to come back. I think he was all set to come back in any case.

Several Hon.: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Two major statements are to follow as well as the Business Question. There will obviously be a further report to the House on this matter. I therefore propose to call just one more hon. Member from either side.

Mr. Hal Miller: Despite the obvious unsuitability, if the report is correct, of Lord Ryder continuing as Chairman of the NEB, can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that this episode will in no way prejudice the Government's consideration of future allocations of public funds for the new Mini?

Mr. Varley: Without making any comment on the first part of the question, the future funding of the long-term plans of British Leyland does not arise out of this Private Notice Question. I hope to report to the House on the matter in the near future.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is one further example of the various organs of the Press in this country trying to take advantage of all sorts of claims, which are usually proved absolutely untrue, in order to attack public enterprise? Does not my right hon. Friend also agree that this alleged type of practice is very much the type of private enterprise commercial practice? If we are to look into this matter, should we not conduct a full inquiry into the whole practice of the multinationals with regard to this type of thing?

Mr. Varley: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I do not want to go any further than I have gone at present, on the basis that I have asked for inquiries to be made and that in due course I shall want to look at the evidence and report to the House. My hon. Friend asked about international practices. The Government made their views firmly known on 18th May last year in the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23RD MAY—Debate on the Report of the Annan Committee on The Future of Broadcasting, Command No. 6753.
Motion on the code of practice on disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes.
TUESDAY 24TH MAY—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: A debate on job opportunities for young people.
Motion relating to statements of changes in immigration rules.
WEDNESDAY 25TH MAY—Second Reading of the Patents Bill [Lords].
At 7 o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has announced opposed Private Business for consideration.
THURSDAY 26TH MAY—A debate on airport policy.
Proceedings on the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
FRIDAY 27TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' motions.
Afterwards, the House will rise for the Spring Holiday until Monday 13th June.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Bill on direct elections will be published before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Foot: I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Lady that confirmation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can add nothing to what was said on the subject just now by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that we shall ever see Hansard again, let alone next week?

Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge the serious inconvenience for the House of this matter, but I am very glad that yesterday, thanks to the efforts made to deal with the matter and thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, a settlement was reached and that the services will be speedily restored to the House.

Mrs. Thatcher: If the Bill is not to be published, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement saying why, because we understood that the Government were using their best endeavours on this matter?

Mr. Foot: I shall pass the right hon. Lady's request on to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Faulds: When may we have a statement about progress towards the independence of Zimbabwe?

Mr. Foot: There may have to be further statements on that subject in ensuing weeks, but I have no proposal for a statement next week. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with the matter all the time.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does not the Leader of the House agree that it is desirable that when there is a Bill to change the constitution—which is what the devolution Bill does—it should be published before a recess so that all hon. Members can discuss the Bill with their constituents before returning to Westminster to debate it?

Mr. Foot: I understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's request, but I have nothing to add to my reply to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Tuesday evening the House was allocated two hours to consider several important EEC energy documents? Is he aware that of that time more than 70 minutes were occupied by speeches from four Front Benchers, and that a large number of Back Bench Members were unable to speak? Will my right hon. Friend look at this whole question of time allocation, and, given the interest in the subject, may we have a debate on energy policy fairly soon?

Mr. Foot: I indicated on a previous occasion that I though that there should be a further debate on energy at a fairly early stage, but I cannot promise time for it in the near future. As for the time taken up by Front-Bench speakers, I understand that this is an inconvenience for hon. Members, but there is a difficulty generally about the discussion of EEC matters. We are doing our best to meet the requirements of the House on the matter.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Given the incredibly late publication of the direct elections Bill, will the Leader of the House say what progress he expects to make with the Bill, whenever it is published, before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Foot: I can add nothing to what has been said by my right hon. Friend

the Prime Minister. I acknowledge the interest of the House in this question. The earlier the Bill is published, the more likely it is to get through, but I can go no further than what I have said.

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an early opportunity to debate the future of the port sugar refining industry in view of the concern being expressed by sugar workers? Is he aware of the current dispute on Merseyside arising out of the present situation? Is it not time that the House discussed this important question?

Mr. Foot: I acknowledge the importance of the matter, but I cannot promise a debate next week. I know that my hon. Friend and others have been making representations to the Minister concerned about it.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Leader of the House say whether it is administrative and printing difficulties or political difficulties within the Cabinet which are impeding the direct elections Bill?

Mr. Foot: It would be extraordinary for me to refer to any political difficulties in the Cabinet and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do that in anything more than a general sense. It is not a question of printing difficulties either. There are problems to be overcome, and for that reason I have nothing to add to the original answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The debate on job opportunities for young people next week is to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the important submissions being made by the Manpower Services Commission, the Government will set out in the debate their intentions for implementing these proposals?

Mr. Foot: I cannot say whether there will be a full declaration of the Government's policy on this matter. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has taken a special continuing interest in the matter and has been eager that the report should be brought forward and debated as soon as possible. He will give his views in the debate. The report is most important


and obviously commands great national interest.

Sir David Renton: May we have next week a ministerial statement on a matter reported in the Press yesterday, namely, the Government's decision to pay considerable sums of money to advertise in the Communist Morning Star?

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether any question of a public statement on this matter arises. The Government are applying the same rules as they have always applied to the question of advertising in different journals.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend indicate which of next week's items of business he intends to get rid of in order that we may discuss the recent report by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the rail industry?

Mr. Foot: I acknowledge the ingenuity with which my hon. Friend has put his question. I have considered how we might be able to arrange a debate to suit his purpose, although I cannot promise it for next week. However, given his ingenuity I should not be surprised if he was able to make a speech on the subject in debates on a number of items next week.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the welcome and evident haste with which Lord Ryder is attending to the allegations against the commercial practices of British Leyland, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he hopes that it will be possible to have a further Government statement on this matter next week?

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether it would be desirable or necessary to have such a statement. Obviously that would depend upon what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry today and on the discussions which follow. However, if there is a need for such a statement the time will be made available.

Mr. Pavitt: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 328, which stands in my name and which is also sponsored by two Conservative Members, one Liberal and one Welsh nationalist concerning the disastrous Grunwick strike? Is he aware that we had a debate

on this matter in the House before Christmas, urging observance of the rule of law by the management, and that my right hon. Friends from the Front Bench joined me on the picket line at the factory at 8.30 this morning in an endeavour to get the management to accept the rule of law? Can the House now discuss it from that point of view?
[That this House, believing that conciliation is better than confrontation, urges the management of Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd. to accept the rule of law as embodied in the Employment Protection Act 1975 and to implement without further delay Report No. 19 of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service made under Section 12 of that Act by getting round the table with the trade union concerned, which has already accepted the principle of arbitration.]

Mr. Foot: I note my hon. Friend's request for a special debate on the matter. He has raised it on a number of occasions, including in the Easter Adjournment debate. I hope that even at this late stage the employers will take account of what has been said in the House and will respect the rule of law in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to take two more questions from either side. There is a tremendous interest in the major debate today as well as in the two statements which are to come.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Leader of the House say whether there will be an opportunity next week to debate the Government's decision on the next tranche of Government funds to be released to British Leyland?

Mr. Foot: There will be no such opportunity next week, but obviously there are frequent opportunities to discuss such matters in the House.

Mr. Heffer: May I refer to the question by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Can my right hon. Friend indicate that in future efforts will be made to avoid such stoppages and that, for example, we shall not be faced with the prospect of losing rooms down below through some sort of unofficial organisation taking over? Will he indicate what is happening about that?

Mr. Foot: My predecessor in office indicated a year or so ago what were the emergency operations that could be used in the House if we were faced with a breakdown in the normal system for providing Hansard and other facilities. The House at that time accepted the necessity for those emergency operations, and what has happened this week has shown that they were required.
None the less, I fully accept what my hon. Friend has said—both in the representations that he has made in this House and in others that he has made to me—that there are many aspects of this matter which require further consideration. Certainly we are prepared to do that. But I believe that the whole House can rejoice, as I certainly rejoice, that the immediate dispute has been brought to an end and that work is being resumed. I am sure that all of us accept that. But I quite agree that there are further matters to be considered to try to ensure that we avoid these difficulties in the future.

Mr. Gow: In view of the Lord President's personal commitment to uphold the freedom of the Press, may we expect next week a statement about the decision of the Trades Union Congress Press office to discontinue giving information to the BBC industrial correspondent, Mr. John Hosken, following his resignation from the National Union of Journalists?

Mr. Foot: That is not a matter of Government responsibility. In view of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question to me personally, as one who was responsible for the passage through the House of Commons of the legislation affecting these matters I must tell him that we did not introduce legislation which favoured or disfavoured the closed shop in journalism or anywhere else. What we did in this matter was what we had promised—to restore legislation affecting this question as it had existed prior to 1971.

Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend will recall that at the time of the BP bribery payments in Italy I was, unfortunately, unable—and I had no support from the Conservative Party—to convince him of the need for time to debate this issue. Now that such allegations are raised again in relation to another matter, could my right hon. Friend assure the House

that when inquiries have been completed the House will be given an opportunity to debate the central issues involved?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has perfectly properly raised this matter on a previous occasion. It was from this side of the House that pressure came for a debate on that matter and my hon. Friend did not at that time have any assistance from hon. Members opposite. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has indicated the Government's absolute opposition to any form of corruption.

POLICE (PAY)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on police pay.
When pay policy came into force in July 1975, the general rule was that all subsequent settlements were subject to the limits laid down, but police pay was increased by an average 30 per cent. from 1st September 1975, under an agreement reached in June 1975, and specially protected by the transitional arrangements provided for in the first round of the pay policy. That agreement increased the weekly pay of the federated ranks by amounts ranging upwards from £10 a week; and under the White Paper the agreement had to be regarded as a first round settlement, displacing the £6 a week which was all that would have otherwise been payable.
At a meeting of the Police Council last July, the official side offered increases for the federated ranks to come into effect from 1st September 1976 in strict accordance with the guidelines for the second round of the pay policy: increases of 5 per cent., with a minimum of £2·50 and a maximum of £4 a week. The staff side rejected the offer. The Police Federation asked the official side to join in making representations to the Government for the payment of increases of £6 a week, on the ground that the previous year's agreement had been a commitment from before the introduction of the first round of the policy. The official side did not feel able to associate itself with representations for what it regarded as a breach of the pay policy. The Police Federations for England and Wales and


for Northern Ireland, though not the Scottish Federation, thereupon withdrew from the Police Council.
Informal discussions have since continued with the Federations both on the question of pay and on the question of negotiating machinery, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland and me, had a meeting with representatives of the Federations on 7th March last.
On the question of pay, the Government, with the agreement of the official side of the Police Council, have not departed from the principle that there can be no breach of the second round of the pay policy, but we have discussed possible commitments for future improvements in fringe benefits, subject to pay policy. An offer which, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House on Monday, represented the limit to which we could go was put to the Federations on 25th April. The Federation for England and Wales informed me on 9th May that it regarded the offer as wholly inadequate, adhering to its position that the federated ranks had been denied an increase under the first round of the policy.
Thus discussions with the Federation have regrettably reached an impasse.
In the second round there was no room for flexibility for any organisation and thus acceptance of the offer made on 25th April would leave outstanding many of the problems to which the Federation's representatives have drawn attention in recent discussions. They argue that police pay has fallen significantly behind the relationship to outside pay levels recommended by the Royal Commission in 1960, and they consider that we should be taking account of the way in which the pressures on the police have increased since that time—for example, as a result of the increase in crime and especially in crimes of violence.
I cannot commit myself at this stage to what it will or will not be possible to do for the police in the next round of pay policy, the guidelines for which have still to be decided, but my hope is that the guidelines will offer scope for greater flexibility, and I am anxious that we should not be prevented from considering what may be possible in future by an

indefinite continuation of the present impasse.
I am also very conscious of the problems of members of the police service whose pay has not been increased since September 1975. I am reluctant to contemplate their having to wait for a further period of weeks or even months before receiving increases due to them since 1st September 1976.
I therefore propose as soon as possible to make and lay regulations under Section 33 of the Police Act 1964 to increase the pay of the federated ranks of the police service in England and Wales by 5 per cent., with a maximum of £4 a week, with effect from 1st September 1976. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland propose to make similar regulations for the police service in Scotland and Northern Ireland. All the bodies represented on Committee C of the Police Council will be furnished with drafts of these regulations before they are made.
I also propose to proceed with the establishment of an inquiry to review the negotiating machinery for police pay. I have already circulated to all the bodies concerned, including the Federations, draft terms of reference for this inquiry, and I hope that we may be able to make very early progress with this. The Federations have also proposed that there should be a review in the rather longer term of their rôle, functions and constitution. I have told them that I am in principle prepared to set up such a review.
The steps I have announced this afternoon are in the best interests of the police service and of the country and will make it possible to bring to an end the present unhappy and unsatisfactory state of relations between the Police Federations and the bodies represented on the official side of the Police Council, so that we can all turn our attention to the more constructive question of what to do for the future in the next round which for the police begins in September 1977.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that by this drastic action in imposing a settlement he is clearly risking straining police discipline and loyalty far further than this Government would dare to do with any other group? Is it not particularly sad that the


order which he proposes to lay is confined to the bare bones of a stage 2 settlement and offers none of the various fringe benefits which were discussed within the pay policy during negotiations and for which my hon. Friends and I have consistently pressed?
Would he confirm that the increase will be backdated to 1st September 1976, which would put some extra money now into the pockets of hard-pressed police officers and their families?
In addition to the various constructive proposals and inquiries which he has offered for the future, would not the Home Secretary agree that it is essential, in the interests of the protection of our citizens in future, that we now make certain that in future pay negotiations we properly reward our police officers for the outstanding service they perform for our nation?

Mr. Rees: I said that what I was doing was with effect from 1st September 1976. The money will be backdated to that date.
Regarding what I am doing about police discipline, the difficulty is that last July the negotiating machinery broke up. This matter concerns not only the Government, but the local authorities, which provide about 30 per cent. of the money. The negotiations would have been better if all concerned had been involved.
Fringe benefits within the pay policy—an increase in annual leave allowances, the removal of certain restrictions on pensionable age payments and the introduction of and scope for an on-call allowance—were under discussion, but were turned down. All that I am able to do is to operate a strict phase 2 policy.
As I said in my statement, all the bodies represented on Committee C will be furnished with drafts of the regulations before they are laid. That was the way in which the 1964 Act was conceived by the Home Secretary of the day. I was in Opposition at the time and recall it well. I am carrying out the law as it was passed in the House of Commons. The method of pay negotiations for the police is completely different from the pay negotiation methods for private industry and for other grades in industry

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend tell us why this could not

have been done before? Does he accept that many police representatives whom I have met will appreciate what has been done today and will expect further advances in future?
Will he give special consideration to fringe benefits, because they are important from the police point of view?

Mr. Rees: There was complaint that I had done it today. If I had done it within the last six or seven months, I imagine that the outcry would have been much greater. There has been no negotiation. The pay negotiating machinery has broken down. I do not accept the situation, but I understand why it has arisen. Bearing in mind that phase 3 for the police starts on 1st September this year, which is a different date from that for other bodies, if we are not careful, when everybody else is negotiating phase 3 the police will miss out again. I wanted to get into a position to be able to talk about their real problems. However, in phases 1 and 2 there could be no exception. We had to stick to the policy. But that is not the only reason for the problems that we have had.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand full well the Home Secretary's difficulties. I have a great deal of affection for him personally, but I believe that he is playing with fire.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation is a democratically elected body, more representative of the police service than this Government are of the nation? On what authority does he feel entitled to stuff down the throat of this elected body a settlement which, on behalf of the whole service, it has already rejected as being totally inadequate to the needs of the service?
Is the Home Secretary aware that on the last occasion that any Government attempted to do that to an elected group of men, it happened to be the police? My predecessor as adviser to the Police Federation—the present Prime Minister—said that it was wholly unacceptable.
What further proposals has the right hon. Gentleman regarding phase 3? How has it been possible to increase the pay of firemen in Northern Ireland and of workers at Windscale in Cumberland during phase 2? Was it simply because


they have the power to strike and the police service has not?

Mr. Rees: On the last point about Northern Ireland, that was one particular group of firemen. I was at the Fire Brigades Union Conference yesterday. I did not find the rest of the firemen asking for extra money on the ground that firemen in Northern Ireland had been given some. That increase was specifically because of the other problems which arise for firemen in Northern Ireland. Something had to be done about that. If I had been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I would have done it. The fire brigates did not say that all firemen in the United Kingdom ought to be treated in the same way.
At Windscale, only a small number of people was involved in terms of normal negotiation. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I understand that it did not break pay policy. We had to stick to phase 2.
If the Opposition believe in a free-for-all in which there are no arrangements for phases or anything of that kind they will find that policemen and the public sector in general come at the bottom of the pile in those arrangements. There have been questions as to what happened in the past. I understand that the Government of the day did then what I am doing now—and only for widows. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if the Government could do that for a small group, they could do it for the whole. I know that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) will object to what I have done, speaking on behalf of the police, but I have to take a wider view. I believe that this is right. In my view, the police will miss out unless we enable ourselves to look at their problems in the next phase.
Of course the negotiating body for the police is democratically elected. I am not stuffing this proposal down anybody's throat. Just as in the Elementary Education Act 1870 there was a Cowper-Temple clause which said that one did not have to have religious education, I shall have a clause put in—if necessary, named after the hon. Gentleman—which will allow any policeman to say "No, I do not want the pay".

Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary recognise that, although it is right that policemen and their families should have in their pockets sums which are not in dispute, this settlement will in no way remove the deep grievance about the £6 and whether it ought to have been replaced by the £30? Since this matter will come up in phase 3 negotiations, how does he envisage those negotiations being carried out, given the atmosphere which now obtains and the fact that the machinery is not operating?

Mr. Rees: The atmosphere cannot be worse than it is now in terms of negotiation. I hope that is not a threat from people who are not involved.
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said on the first point. Coming down from Bridlington last night, I heard on the radio that the Liberal Party wanted a stern incomes policy from which there was no movement in any shape or form. The first thing that it does today is to ask me to depart from that policy.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend referred to the Fire Brigades Union. The police do not belong to the Trades Union Congress. As the Police Federation is likely to vote for affiliation to the TUC and, because of the present discontent, to vote also for the right to strike, does my right hon. Friend agree that, although many policemen will accept these proposals, they will not get rid of the discontent? In view of the discontent and the fact that the Police Federation will probably vote for affiliation to the TUC, what is the Government's attitude? Will they encourage it? Personally, I believe that they should.

Mr. Rees: I take my hon. Friend's point about the discontent, because it is present. It is also present amongst many other groups of workers.
I understand that an Act that was put through the House by the previous Administration in 1963 or 1964 allows the Police Federation to affiliate to other organisations. It is not for the Government to say whether an organisation can affiliate to the TUC. I understand that it is not a matter of knocking on the door and saying "Here we are." It is a question whether the organisation, in terms of its rules and regulations and so on,


meets certain criteria. I doubt whether the Police Federation, as organised now, would meet those criteria.
I have made my view clear on the right to strike. I do not deny that that has a bearing on this matter. But, given the history of the police and the work that they do, I believe that they would be wrong to get involved in strike action for pay. I accept that it is the job of the Government of the day to see that the police are compensated for this, bearing in mind how strike action relates to professionalism and so forth. From 1960 onwards all Governments are to blame when it comes to the implementation of the Royal Commission precepts. We must look at this, but it cannot be done in phase 1 or phase2.

Mr. Montgomery: Can the Secretary of State explain how the Government are able to provide fringe benefits for the seamen in order to get around the incomes policy but are so intransigent with the police? In relation to the review of the police negotiating machinery, is he aware that this was promised last September? Why has there been this period of complete inactivity?

Mr. Rees: There has been no inactivity on my part. We have had submissions from the Police Federation last week on their views on the members and terms of reference of the negotiating body. These are being looked at. On fringe benefits. I do not accept that the seamen's award broke phase 2. I have a list here of the fringe benefits which we discussed and which were turned down. I put to the constituent members of the Police Council that it would have to be a straight phase 2 agreement.

Mr. Scott: While agreeing with the Home Secretary about the unwisdom of police contemplating strike action, may I ask whether he is aware that he is the police authority for the Metropolitan Police who have to work longer hours, are worse paid, and have less leave than any other comparable police force in Western Europe or North America? If we allow that situation to continue we shall put in jeopardy our reputation for policing in this country.

Mr. Rees: I understand that, but I do not accept the hon. Member's analogy. I

accept that inflation has eroded pay for everyone and that differentials have been altered as a result of a strict pay policy. One of the differences between the Metropolitan Police and police forces in the provinces is that the latter have the problem of very little overtime. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Police get an enormous amount of overtime. I would be the last person to justify that situation in terms of take-home pay and rent allowances, which are not taxable and are higher in the metropolitan area. I do not accept what the hon. Member says. However, I agree that we should do something about the general situation and I hope that in phase 3 we can make a beginning.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call only those hon. Members who were on their feet at that moment.

Mr. James Johnson: The Home Secretary has not answered the questions about fringe benefits. Would he say a word about pensions?

Mr. Rees: Fringe benefits in phase 2 of the pay policy were not in any way major benefits. There were certain fringe benefits for which there was a commitment subject to the pay policy under phase 2. We are not pre-empting phase 3 and we were discussing fringe benefits with the police. Since I have been in the Home Office, despite the cutbacks in estimated public expenditure, we have reached a position in which we are spending half a billion pounds in real terms on law and order in general, and an enormous amount of that goes on police pensions and fire service pensions. I am not complaining about that, nor am I saying that police pensions are perfect. I am merely pointing out that an enormous amount of extra money that I spend goes on police pensions.

Mr. Mates: In the Home Secretary's own words, the police will still feel as if they are at the bottom of the pile after this unfair settlement is imposed upon them. How much longer will this Government tolerate a situation in which the Police pay is 20 per cent. below the national average male wage? The Royal Commission said that police pay should be 4 per cent. above the national average. Will the Home Secretary find it in his heart to do something about


stage 3 before next week, otherwise a decision may be taken in anger by the Police Federation which we shall regret in years to come?

Mr. Rees: Maybe I shall regret it more than anyone else as I am the one who has to go to the Police Federation. If there is to be a pay policy, it is absolutely vital that in respect of stages 1 and 2 we should stick to the rules. Pay policy has played a major part in the economic policy of the last couple of years. I can say nothing about stage 3 at the moment, but in talking with my Cabinet colleagues about stage 3 I feel that it would be very much better to have the police views about stage 3 instead of their talking about stage 1. We have had their views in the past, but they should be talking about stage 3 now, as all the other unions are doing.

Mr. Lawrence: Has the Home Secretary considered what effect his statement will have on the Police Federation conference beginning on Tuesday? Does he not think that it is far more likely now than before that the police will vote for the right to strike? If they do, what reaction can we expect from the Home Secretary?

Mr. Rees: I have already indicated that I believe that police forces and the right to strike do not go together. If that is not the view of the police, so be it. In this country we would have to consider it and find out whether it was a majority view. I do not attend many trade union or professional body conferences—by the very nature of my job. I could have left this statement until after the conference next Wendesday, but I thought that it was more honourable to make it beforehand. Hon. Members should consider the fact that it would have been much easier for me to have left it.

Mr. Stanbrook: For the future, will the Home Secretary accept on behalf of the Government the principle of the Willink Report, namely that the police should have a premium of 4 per cent. above the national average industrial wage?

Mr. Rees:: Governments of all persuasions gave their view on this. I cannot pre-empt phase 3. I understand the position of the police and the job that they do in this country. What was not possible for phases 1 and 2 may be

possible in phase 3 in this respect. It may be, as I discovered at the Fire Brigades Union conference yesterday, that changing responsibility means changing methods. A former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said to me that the police would have to decide whether they were more interested in boot allowances or in becoming a professional body. [HON. MEMBERS: "Superficial."] It is not superficial and that man knows more about the police than do hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is what is involved in pay negotiations over the years.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. The Government's response to the Layfield Committee's Report on Local Government Finance is published this afternoon as a Green Paper. Copies of the Green Paper are available in the Vote Office.
As the House will recognise, there are no quick or simple solutions to the problems of local government finance. We have, however, come to firm conclusions on a number of the issues raised in the Layfield Report, conclusions which will nevertheless need further detailed consideration. On other matters raised by Layfield we have narrowed the choices and made provisional proposals which will need further public discussion before we can determine what is the right course to follow.
Our main conclusions are as follows. First, we reject the Layfield Committee's basic argument that an improved relationship between central and local government can be achieved only by adopting either a system of strong central intervention or a system under which local authorities would be permitted a substantial increase in the scale of local taxation and thus to manage their own affairs with less control from central Government. The Government see central-local relations in a different light—neither centralist nor localist, in Layfield terms. They consider that the responsibilities involved in the provision of local services are inevitably shared.
Local autonomy must be preserved and encouraged, but at the same time central


Government must fulfil its economic responsibilities and ensure that its policy interests in locally provided services are safeguarded. The Government intend, therefore, to strengthen the present financial machinery to enable central and local government to fulfil their rôles more effectively.
Secondly, we are not convinced that it would be right, as the Layfield Committee suggested, to add local income tax to existing rates as an additional source of local revenue. But we agree with the Layfield Committee that the various other local taxes which have been suggested to supplement local rates—including local sales tax, local motor vehicle fuel duties and local payroll tax—have serious disadvantages, and we do not propose to pursue them.
We also agree with the Committee that it would be wrong to abolish domestic rates. We consider that to do so would be to impose unacceptable burdens on national taxation. It would mean increasing the basic rate of income tax by 4½p in the pound, or increasing the standard rate of VAT from the present 8 per cent. to 14 per cent.
Our third conclusion is, however, that the rating system needs substantial reform. We propose, therefore, to end the current rental basis for domestic properties. In its place we propose to adopt capital valuation. The impact of the change will be tempered by transitional measures and there may be a need for some more permanent modifications. Agricultural land and buildings will remain de-rated. Changes will be made to some other parts of the rating system to help small business in particular and to bring the system more into line with present-day circumstances.
Our fourth conclusion is that local authorities should be freer to determine their own priorities for capital expenditure. We therefore propose to discuss with the local authority associations a new system whereby, within general policy guidelines laid down by central Government, approvals would be given for capital expenditure on programmes rather than on projects.
Our fifth conclusion is that we should strengthen the machinery for helping local authorities and their electorates to obtain

greater efficiency and value for money. Efficiency is a matter primarily for local authorities, but the Government will see that more comparative and other value-for-money studies are undertaken. An independent advisory body will be set up to consider general audit matters.
Our sixth conclusion is that Exchequer grant should continue to be the most important source of revenue for local government and it should be distributed mainly as a block grant. But the form and method of distribution of the grant is the most important of those matters on which we believe there should be further and wider public debate.
We all would, I think, acknowledge that the present rate support grant system has defects and the Layfield Committee did discuss a new system—the unitary grant—which seems to us to go a long way to removing those defects. But the local authority associations have all told me that they are opposed to unitary grant, which seems to them to have grave defects. The question of unitary grant or alternatively of amendments to the present RSG system needs further discussion. Until these consultations have been concluded, the Government will not come to conclusions about the form and method of distribution of Exchequer grant.
In framing the Green Paper we have had four aims in mind. First, we seek to maintain and enhance the independence of local government; secondly, we seek to improve and encourage greater accountability of local government to its electorate; thirdly, we seek to establish an effective and proper degree of Government central control over the total of local government expenditure; last, but not least, we seek to make fairer and more equitable the methods of local taxation.
We now propose to hold urgently detailed consultations with the local authority associations on those matters on which we have reached general conclusions. We are also anxious to have discussions with the associations and to hear the views—by the end of September—of other interested organisations and individuals on the other important matters in the Green Paper.
This statement relates only to England and Wales. The detailed application to Wales will need to be considered in the


light of the implementation of Government policy on devolution and the need to consult the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is making a separate announcement about these issues as they affect Scotland.
Finally, I regret to say that, owing to the industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, printed copies of the Green Paper will not be available for hon. Members until the middle of next week, but typescripts are available now in the Vote Office.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the only proposal of consequence announced today is that the present unsatisfactory system of domestic rates, based on rental values, is now to be based on an even more unsatisfactory system of rates based on capital values? Does he not recognise the seriousness of paragraph 6.17 of his Green Paper, which admits not only that will the more expensive house bear a heavier burden regardless of the income of the occupier but that the cheapest houses will also be disproportionately hit?
Has he understood that his proposals are therefore specifically designed to single out for adverse treatment the inner urban area, the first-time buyer, the lower income groups and the council tenants? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that it must follow that the anomalies of his proposed capital valuation system must become the basis for water rating?
Will the Secretary of State understand that the rating proposals that he has put forward are quite unacceptable to the Opposition, who believe that his announcement about rates, particularly in an economic climate of high inflation and high income taxes, will simply make the present bad system worse?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman's response and his questions to some extent surprise me. He says that there is an unsatisfactory system of rates. I think that all hon. Members on both sides of the House can level accusations and criticisms at the rating system. That is easy enough, but to say that there is no improvement in prospect by changing from what is now accepted as an outmoded method—it must be outmoded, because there is no serious basis of information on which a

rental assessment can be made for domestic rates—and that the present system is to be preferred to a shift to capital values is very surprising. It is not the view of virtually all those who have seriously studied the prospect of changing from rental to capital value.
All that I can say about the hon. Gentleman's comment on the impact of the changes is that it is far too early for him to deliver himself of that categorical judgment.

Mr. Heseltine: It is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Shore: We are saying in the Green Paper that that might be the effect on the more expensive and less expensive houses, but it is untrue to say that it would necessarily have an adverse effect on poorer areas, including the inner cities, because it is the distribution of grants rather than the actual method of assessment of rates that determines whether those areas will do well or badly in terms of local authority distribution.
The hon. Gentleman says that the change is not acceptable to the Opposition. He has a duty to his party and to the House at least to make plain, if he says that the whole system is unacceptable, what he would wish to put in its place.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the proposition that the domestic rate should be levied on capital value? Does not he agree that some people living in highly valued residences find it hard to make both ends meet, whereas others living in less highly valued homes could probably more easily afford to pay a higher rate? Will he look again at income as the best basis for levying rates?

Mr. Shore: I am not persuaded that incomes form the best basis for levying rates. I believe, on the balance of information that we have, that the advantage lies in moving to a capital system and away from a rental system, which is totally losing contact with reality. But, of course, if there are problems of the kind that my right hon. Friend fears, we have already made plain that we would have transitional arrangements, and, if need be, we could build in certain brakes and stops upon adverse movements should they be revealed.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Looking back to
…unhappy, far-off things And battles long ago",
my recollection may be inaccurate, but was not the substitution of capital assessment for the hypothetical rent basis contained in Part IV of the Local Government Bill of 1948, and subsequently abandoned?

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has an enviable memory of legislation in this respect. His experience is longer than mine. There was probably more historic reality behind the attempt to assess rates on rental values in 1948 than in 1977.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Liberal Party sympathises with him about the problem of trying to make changes in the method of raising local government finance? It is a tangible problem. We regret that the Layfield Committee did not take on board our ideas about site valuation, largely because of the effect of the Community Land Act.
Is the Secretary of State aware that we also reject the idea of centrally collected taxes, because that would mean the end of local government as we know it, and that many of those who are high in local government also reject that idea? We agree with the Secretary of State that a system based on capital values would be better than the present system, but we regret that the right hon. Gentleman has turned down local income tax without further consideration. We welcome his remarks about the rate support grant, a system which many hon. Members believe goes much against the rural areas.

Mr. Shore: I understand the hon. Member's concern. The Liberal Party has traditionally had certain views about site value tax, but I do not believe that that would be appropriate now. I also understand his party's leanings towards local income tax. We do not reject this lightheartedly, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make the point that if local government is to flourish and have freedom of action, it is important that there should be a substantial local source of revenue from which it can derive the ability to finance expenditure. Proposals that would seek further to reduce the

proportion of revenue that can be raised locally would lead to more centralised control of an undesirable kind. That would stifle local democracy.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the Secretary of State's announcement about the publication of a Green Paper mean that the Government's refusal to bring in rating for agricultural land is a fixed and final view, or that the Government are open to further discussion on this matter, as they are on other matters? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition proposals—as we understand them—for the abolition of domestic rating without any clear indication of what they would put in its place is the most ridiculous proposition that the Opposition have ever made?

Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend has said in the latter part of his supplementary question. There should be more information, because the country should be treated in an adult way and a real choice should be put before the country in this difficult matter of local finance. I regret that the Opposition have not contributed their view about how the problem should be settled. The Opposition cannot just go on calling for the end of a tax policy that produces £1,800 million in tax revenue every year. They will have to answer questions about it.
As for agricultural land, the Government's view is that it would not be helpful to bring such land within the rating system. I understand the argument in theory and the logic behind it but, nevertheless, at a time when we are most anxious to encourage agriculture and should be doing everything to avoid food price increases such a burden could not be added.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Successive Socialist Administrations have denied the quinquennial rating revaluation, although I am sure that the Secretary of State recognises what an enormous task that is. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the time scale for the introduction of this change? The Secretary of State must recognise the vast scope for different ideas on valuation. Does he realise that that will lead to a lag in the resources going into local government while there are disputes with the local authorities about rateable values? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that happens even under the existing system?

Mr. Shore: On the matter of the timetable, legislation will obviously be needed. The revaluation that will be required would presumably come into effect in about 1981–82. That is the timetable upon which we shall seek to work. I accept a part of what the hon. Gentleman said about the quinquennial reviews. It is extremely desirable that they should be held, but successive Governments have not had a perfect record in seeking quinquennial revaluation. However, it would be helpful for all ratepayers if Governments stuck to them in future.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the defect in the proposal that he has put before the House? There are many people who, because of the inflexibility of the housing system, are trapped in properties that are larger and more expensive than they would wish to occupy. What about the position of council tenants living in the most recently built properties that are likely to have higher valuations than some of the older owner-occupied premises?

Mr. Shore: We shall have more information once we get down to the task of evaluating the effect of the Government's policy on various properties in different parts of the country. I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made about people being trapped in properties that are too large for them, particularly older people. However, some rather surprising facts were brought out by the Layfield Committee showing that for people on lower incomes rates are a progressive tax. I was surprised at that myself, but it is so. Among the main reasons for that is that one of my predecessors, the late Richard Crossman, introduced rate rebates, and many poorer people also have the advantage of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of State first deal with the question about the effect of this scheme on water rating, which he omitted to answer when replying to an earlier supplementary question? Will the cost of the administration of the scheme be lower than that of the existing scheme, taking into account initial costs? Why have the Government done nothing to spread the load of the costs of local government that are now directly borne by householders? Why is

it that single householders, whose means may be limited, will pay the full new rate whereas many individuals who are not householders will be excluded?

Mr. Shore: The last point that the hon. Gentleman made is slightly unreal, because although it is true—and I understand this—that rates fall on the occupier of a particular property and may be payable by one person or by two or three earning adults, the Government finance about 60 per cent. or more of local government expenditure through the rate support grant. That is financed out of general taxation to which other people contribute just as much as householders do.
I regret that the effect of the scheme on water rating was not covered in my statement and I shall have to give the hon. Gentleman a reply on that later.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: By what criteria has the Secretary of State arrived at the conclusion that he has put to the House this afternoon? The new scheme is not related to benefit received or capacity to pay and it does not get rid of any of the collecting mechanism—especially when one considers that there will have to be a giant capital valuation carried out on every property in the country. By what criteria has the Secretary of State arrived at this astonishing conclusion, which is bound to result in greatly increased cost of collection? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a capital valuation carried out on all premises in the United Kingdom will produce a massive number of appeals?

Mr. Shore: Any change in the basis of valuation will lead to appeals. Revaluations lead to appeals anyway. The hon. Gentleman has put forward a remarkable proposition. He referred to a system in which people do not receive benefits, but I was not aware that our taxation system was geared to receipt of benefits. As to capacity to pay, the rating system has become, as a result of many changes that we have made, progressive on lower incomes and tends to continue to be progressive even on higher incomes, because the people concerned tend to occupy expensive houses.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the hon. Members who have been


seeking to catch my eye since the Secretary of State finished his statement, but I hope that they will play fair with the other hon. Members who wish to speak in the following debate.

Mr. MacFarquhar: What does my right hon. Friend expect will be the percentage increase in the total amount of rates gathered as a result of this change? What does he expect to be the increase in the total amount of bureaucratic expenditure as a result of the changeover, including the processing of the changeover? What will be the impact in an area such as the East Midlands on a ratepayer in a house, whether council or private, valued at up to £10,000?

Mr. Shore: These are detailed questions that will become clearer as we have further discussions on the basis of the Green Paper. I cannot help my hon. Friend with his question about the effect on property-owners in the East Midlands. It is also too early to judge whether it will lead to an overall increase in the amount raised through the rates.

Mr. Heseltine: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on a remarkable gap in his briefing? He has announced a major change in the structure of local authority financing, but he has not been able to tell us what effect it will have on water rates. Does he realise that responsibility for water rating lies with his Department and that water rates can represent up to 20 per cent. of the cost of domestic rates? There will be profound anxiety that he is not able to tell us what is to happen to the basis of revenue raising for the water industry.

Mr. Shore: I do not see why what I have announced should affect the basic percentage rating in respect of water rates.

Mr. Heseltine: Is it based on the capital value of domestic properties?

Mr. Shore: Mr. Shore The Opposition are getting a little over-excited on this question. If the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will be patient—and on this occasion he will have to be—he can have the answer in half an hour.

Mr. Heseltine: That is a scandal.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have continuing doubts about capital value rating, not least because of the distortions that it may produce in the house purchase market by depressing the prices of more expensive properties and raising the price of cheaper properties? Is it not time that we looked at local authority finances and the possibility of broadening their base in the context of the structure of local and perhaps regional government?

Mr. Shore: That raises much wider questions, but I take my hon. Friend's underlying point. Many people have rightly said that mistakes have been made in trying to decide different structures of local government without at the same time deciding what is to be the proper method of financing them.

Mr. Alan Clark: I know of the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for our heritage, so would not the right hon. Gentleman think it appropriate to look at the assessment of grade one buildings in order to avoid placing on them an indirect form of taxation that may defeat much of the legislation that the Government have put before the House to relieve them of burdens that will, in the end, otherwise destroy them?

Mr. Shore: I shall look further into that question.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals do nothing to relieve the injustice between citizen and citizen of the present domestic rate system? Has he no better proposal for spreading the burden of rates over those who receive local authority services and for payment to be according to means? Is he aware that it is no use trotting out the old argument about two-thirds of local government expenditure being met by the taxpayer when it is the other one-third that is the difficult problem and puts such a burden on the citizen?

Mr. Shore: It can be argued that all tax systems have an element of what the right hon. Gentleman describes as injustice. If we are serious about local government finance, we must look not just at one tax, but at alternative taxes and whether they are more just or their advantages outweigh those of the rates.

Mr McCrindle: May I be even more specific than my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about something that I have evidently not taken on board, namely, what are the advantages of the new system over the current system to the widow on a fixed income living in her own property?

Mr. Shore: We shall get a fairer and more accurate assessment of the real value of the domestic property occupied by our citizens, and this will give us a better and more consistent basis for levying rates.

Mr. Michael Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be total dismay among householders throughout the country that rates are to continue? May we have an assurance that there will be no further distribution of grants from the counties to the inner urban areas? Did the right hon. Gentleman's answer on water rating mean that he has stopped all direct billing, or will his statement in half an hour's time explain exactly what will happen to water rates?

Mr. Shore: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the last part of his question.

Mr. Heseltine: That is appalling.

Mr. Shore: The interventions from the Opposition Front Bench are such that I regret that I missed the second part of the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris).

Mr. Michael Morris: I asked about grant distribution between the counties and inner urban areas. May we have an assurance that there will be no further diminution of the county grant in the coming financial year?

Mr. Shore: I can give no such assurance. I am consulting local authority associations as usual at this time of the year. We are at the beginning of the rate support grant annual cycle and it is only when these consultations have been completed that I shall be able to make an announcement.

Mr. Durant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given no answer about costs? Is he aware that capital valuation fluctuates tremendously in the

market and a quinquennial review will not be sufficient to make the scheme work, so it will, therefore, be very expensive?

Mr. Shore: I do not believe that the new system will have those disadvantages. These are matters on which we shall become much better informed when we start to debate seriously the content of the Green Paper and have the comments of the real practitioners of local government to help us.

Sir George Young: Has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the cost of the mammoth task of revaluing the whole capital stock in this country? If so, can he tell us the answer? Can he also say how many extra staff will be needed for this work?

Mr. Shore: There is bound to be an increase in the number of staff required, but it is not possible to give an estimate of the total cost involved.

Mr. McCrindle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inability of the Secretary of State to provide a very important answer in respect of water rates and his indication that he would be able to provide the answer in half an hour, has the right hon. Gentleman sought your leave, Mr. Speaker, to interrupt the debate on the Royal Navy?

Mr. Speaker: Not yet, and the right hon. Gentleman would be very lucky to do so.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that at seven minutes past five o'clock—that will be half an hour after he made that remark—he would say whether water rates were to be based on capital value. I think that we need to know whether he will make that statement in the House, in which case we should remain in the Chamber to hear him, or whether at seven minutes past five o'clock he will place a paper in the Vote Office. This is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman made this statement and we want to know in which form a further statement will be made so that we may know where we can get the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Obviously it is not a matter for me where the Minister makes


his statement, or whether he makes a statement or whether he does not.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that as you guide the House it is not a matter for you where or how the Secretary of State makes a statement. However, the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman has said that there will be a further statement in half an hour. Many hon. Members, together with those whose duty it is to inform the public outside about the proceedings of this place, are now on inquiry that the Secretary of State does not know how the financing of the water industry is to take place from 1982 onwards, despite the fact that responsibility for the industry lies within his Department, as does the domestic rating system. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to make a further statement now explaining exactly how we may be kept informed.

Mr. Shore: Further to that ludicrous point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House deserves to be treated as though it were not a sixth-form debating society. The only reason that I deliberately refrained from answering the ques-

tion is that I wanted to be absolutely certain that I did not say anything that might mislead the hon. Gentleman. I have promised to make the information available, and I shall do so.

Mr. Heseltine: How?

Mr. Shore:: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a note.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: How will others know?

Mr. Shore: I shall communicate with the hon. Gentleman as well.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now—

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Speaker: This must come to an end soon.

Mr. Heseltine: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but this is a matter of wide public concern. It is not satisfactory for the Secretary of State to say that he will send a message to myself, or to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and myself. The right hon. Gentleman should make public his views on this matter in half an hour's time by using one of the many, many processes available to him.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19th ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

Orders of the Day — THE ROYAL NAVY

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn]

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: The House will be glad to see that the Secretary of State has managed to make it back from the picket line. Some of us wish that he put as much vigilance and enthusiasm into manning the barricades of freedom and peace as he apparently has put into an industrial dispute this morning.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederic Mulley): I do not want to introduce a note of controversy, but it was the barricades of freedom that I was defending this morning.

Mr. Churchill: That is an even more dubious proposition than that which the right hon. Gentleman usually advances from the Dispatch Box.
For eight years now the Western allies have been talking detente with the Russians. Many of our Governments have gone further and have been putting detente into practice by reducing their armament expenditure—most notably the United States, which, in the wake of the Vietnam war, has slashed its defence budget by one-third, from $167 billion in 1969 to $115 billion this year. It can only be a matter for extreme concern that the restraint by the NATO allies has in no way been reciprocated by the Soviet Government, who over the same period have increased their defence expenditure by nearly one-third from $125 billion to $155 billion.
No whisper of detente has been communicated to the Soviet armaments factories, which are producing at a rate that can only be described as being close to a wartime footing. Nor has a whisper of detente been communicated to the Soviet armed forces which, starting from the same baseline as the United States 10 years ago with a total of 3·5

million men under arms, have increased the figure by nearly 1 million. In the same period the United States has cut its forces by 1½ million. The continuation of these trends is incompatible with the maintenance of peace and stability in Europe.
President Carter, addressing last week's NATO ministerial meeing in London, warned:
The threat facing the Alliance has grown steadily in recent years. The Soviet Union has achieved essential strategic nuclear equivalents. Its theatre nuclear forces have been strengthened. The Warsaw Pact's conventional forces in Europe emphasise an offensive posture. These forces are much stronger than needed for any defence purpose.
The President then stated the response that the challenge demands of the alliance. He said:
The collective deterrent strength of our Allies is effective. But it will only remain so if we work to improve it. The United States is prepared to make a major effort to this end…in the expectation that our Allies will do the same. There have to be real increases in Allied defence spending.
Following hard on the heels of the President's warning was the ministerial session of the NATO Defence Planning Committee meeting this week in Brussels, and attended by the Secretary of State. Ministers drew particular attention to the insufficient readiness of NATO forces, to the inadequacies of war reserve munitions and critical weaknesses in anti-armour capability.
There can be no doubt that these criticisms were applied especially to the United Kingdom, which has approximately 10,000 Rhine Army troops currently deployed in Northern Ireland and maintains wholly inadequate war reserve stocks in Germany. Until Milan, delayed by Labour's defence cuts, is fully deployed we find ourselves criminally weak in anti-armour capability.
The Ministers concluded:
An annual increase in real terms in defence budgets should be aimed at by all countries. This annual increase should be in the region of 3 per cent.
What is to be our response to President Carter's initiative and the considered judgment of NATO's Defence Ministers? In the next financial year, 1978–79, Britain's defence budget is planned to be cut by £1,217 million as a result of Labour's five successive defence cuts. That represents a reduction of 18·4 per


cent. on the planned 1974 level of expenditure. Already training and war stocks have been reduced to a dangerous and inadequate level and vitally needed modern equipment has been postponed or cancelled. The additional £230 million cut for 1978–79 announced by the Secretary of State in December can be achieved only by additional cuts in these areas, or by the disbandment of squadrons or battalions, or the paying off of ships.

Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Gentleman is speaking most interestingly, but I was under the impressions that we were all meeting for the purpose of discussing the Royal Navy, and I have not yet heard a single word about it.

Mr. Churchill: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will find that I am coming to that immediately.
The £230 million cut will inevitably lead to the disbandment of ships, of squadrons and of battalions, or to further reductions in training, which very much affect the Royal Navy. This is one of the reasons that we have a half-speed Navy, or at any rate a reduced-speed Navy, today. All such cuts would be wholly counter to the spirit of the London and Brussels meetings and to what the national interest requires.
The Soviet challenge to the West is especially evident on the high seas. Though enjoying internal lines of communication and, unlike the West, not dependent for the bulk of their food, energy and raw materials on the free flow of commerce upon the high seas, the Soviets have been devoting vast resources to the creation of a large, modern, ocean-going fleet. Their naval shipyards have been producing on average 14 submarines and 14 major combatant vessels each year for the past 10 years, deploying a total of 766 new vessels altogether.
The architect of this build-up is Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, who has brazenly declared:
The goal of the Soviet sea power is to effectively utilise the world oceans in the interests of building Communism.
Evidence of this, if any were needed, can be found in the transportation by the Soviet Union in recent months of an

18,000-man Cuban mercenary army from the Western hemisphere to Angola to invade and occupy that country in the Soviet interest, and in the establishment by the Soviets of missile and naval bases elsewhere in the African continent.
The naval and amphibious forces of the Soviet Union, previously designed for use on the perimeter of the USSR, are now capable of extended open-ocean operations. We cannot ignore the fact that the vital sea lines of communication, on which the survival of Britain and Western Europe depend, are today less secure than they were only a decade ago in view of the strengthened Soviet naval and air power.
It would be wrong, of course, to exaggerate the strength of the Soviet surface fleet, which could in a conflict be driven off the high seas by the Western navies, and in particular by the strike carrier force. The threat at sea—and it is a most serious one—comes from the Soviet submarine fleet, which is by far the largest in the world and three times that of the United States.
It also comes from the deployment of more than 100 supersonic Backfire heavy bombers so far deployed by the Soviet Union in the long-range air force and the naval air force on an equal basis. These aircraft, which are three times the gross weight of the United States' F111, are able from their Black Sea and Baltic bases to dominate a wide area of the North Atlantic and of the Mediterranean, equipped as they are with long range, stand-off, nuclear missiles.
This is the challenge that confronts the Royal Navy at sea today. Its task is clear: to gain control of the seas in order to keep open our vital lines of communication around the globe and to enable sea-borne reinforcements—a vital part of NATO's deterrent strategy—to reach their stations in Western Europe in time of crisis.
How is the Royal Navy placed to meet this growing challenge? First, it must be said that the Royal Navy is the most powerful navy in the Alliance, second only to that of the United States, for which it is the pacemaker. We are leaders in development, in operations, and in training. Alone of the European allies we deploy an important force of nuclear attack submarines. Further, the


Royal Navy deploys four Polaris submarines with a most formidable striking power which repreents the backbone of Britain's strategic capability and a very important contribution to the NATO alliance.
It is impossible to talk about the calibre of our Navy without talking about the quality of the men who man our vessels on the high seas and under the oceans. Their quality of excellence and dedication to their job is unequalled. It is not unusual for an ordinary seaman in one of our submarines to have as many as four or five O-levels. That gives some idea of the calibre of men attracted into the service.

Mr. William Hamilton: That is more than the hon. Member has.

Mr. Churchill: Very nearly. In order to maintain a high calibre of officers and men to match the machinery and so that the nation is able to realise a profit on the very substantial human investment involved in a long and expensive training, it is vital that the men and women who serve the Queen feel that they are getting a square deal from the Government. Discontent causes men to leave and deters others from joining, and is wholly incompatible with the voluntary principles on which our Armed Forces are based.
It is for this reason that I am particularly concerned to note that whereas the Armed Forces, under phases 1 and 2 of the Government's pay policy, have been granted a 14·4 per cent. increase over the past two years, average industrial earnings over the same period, according to the Minister of State's parliamentary reply to me of 16th May, increased by no less than 19·9 per cent.—nearly 50 per cent. higher. Bearing in mind that virtually all the Service man's increase has been clawed back in higher accommodation charges—which in some instances have doubled in the course of the past three years—it is no wonder that the forces at every level of rank feel that their loyalty and devotion to their task are being abused by the Government.
I am very glad that the Government have backed down from their intention to consider dishonouring commitments made to pilots—especially Fleet Air Arm pilots—in respect of gratuities. I am glad, furthermore, that the Under-Secretary of

State for Defence for the Royal Air Force has conceded my point that, whatever the practice may have been over the years under successive Governments, it is nevertheless wrong that the Armed Forces and their families should suffer rent increases that are retrospective by one month or more. He has undertaken to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to speak to the Pay Review Board on this matter, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State will agree to do that.
However, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will be aware of the increasing incidence of separation, which especially affects naval families. Quite apart from the long periods that husband have to spend at sea, the provisions of the Rent Act, by making it difficult for them to rent their homes when posted to another area—because they would find difficulty in getting them back again—effectively prevent wives from moving to be close to their husbands. As this problem of separation is now becoming so widespread, will the Minister undertake to give serious consideration to this problem in order to see how it can best be overcome?
I turn now to the southern flank. There can be no question but that the defence cuts have taken a heavy toll of the Navy. There has been a one-year slippage in the delivery programme of the Exocet surface-to-surface missile, which, according to the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, was
partly attributable to financial constraints".
But of even greater concern to the Sub-Committee was what it referred to in paragraph 17 as
the serious implications of the phased abandonment of our commitments to the Southern Flank of NATO and of the reduction in our capacity to provide reinforcements for the Northern Flank. Both represent a diminution of our support for NATO.
That is a direct contradiction of everything that the Government, in their successive defence cuts, have been claiming, namely, that they are strengthening the British commitment to NATO. The all-party Sub-Committee unanimously takes a contrary view.
It has now become clear that the greater part of the Mediterranean naval amphibious force—including a commando group, commando ships, assault ships,


mine counter-measures vessels, and RAF Canberras—is not only to be withdrawn but decommissioned, in addition to at least eight destroyers and an entire long-range maritime patrol flight of Nimrods based in Malta. To carry out such a complete withdrawal from the Mediterranean at a time when Soviet naval and air power is increasing and when the southern flank of NATO is in disarray with the dispute between Greece and Turkey, with the uncertain political and economic situation in Italy, and with the continued absence of France from the organisation of NATO, can only be describd as reckless.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, but just before you took the Chair the Secretary of State for the Environment gave an undertaking to the House that by seven minutes past five he would inform the House, through my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and me, of the answer to the question whether water rates would be based on the capital value of property, which is now to be the basis of the rating system. I want to report that not only has that pledge not been honoured in the House, but no message has been put on the message board and no message has come through by telphone or by personal messenger. Therefore, the House has been grossly misled and the Secretary of State has reneged on his undertaking to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks have been noted by the Minister's representatives.

Mr. Churchill: There are two decisive NATO theatres for NATO: the North Atlantic, which is vital to reinforcement and supplies, and the Mediterranean, the soft under-belly of NATO—which, if it were ever to fall into hostile hands, could lead to the outflanking and collapse of NATO's defence posture in Central Europe.
It is greatly to be regretted that, with the exception of a single guardship in Gibraltar, we have pulled out virtually entirely from the Mediterranean, apart from occasional visits. Perhaps the Minister will confirm later that we shall

maintain the force of staff officers, who are playing such an invaluable part in the headquarters at Naples and who contribute so much to the cohesion of the alliance in a difficult time.
There is a danger that, as a result of the defence cuts, we may fall into a Maginot philosophy of concentrating on a single area to the exclusion of all others. We cannot overlook the fact that the Cape route, which is used to supply the West with 80 per cent. of its oil and NATO with 70 per cent. of its strategic materials, is also a vital area of interest.
I understand that it has been proposed that a NATO maritime co-ordination group should be established at North-wood under C-in-C Channel to organise deployments in the South Atlantic, Indian Ocean and the Far East. Perhaps the Minister could say what progress has been made with that proposal and confirm that Her Majesty's Government no longer oppose its formation.

Mr. Stanley Newens: While the hon. Gentleman is on this theme, what is the Opposition's view on the suggestion involving the formation of a South Atlantic Treaty Organisation, thus extending the purview of NATO over the whole sphere?

Mr. Churchill: It has already been agreed within NATO that the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, Admiral Kidd, should make contingency plans for operations south of the Tropic of Cancer, should that become necessary. The Opposition would welcome joint deployments and exercises outside the immediate NATO area. We are well aware that Europe cannot be defended in northern waters alone.
Let me say a few words about equipment. The Royal Navy is currently being strengthened by the Swiftsure class of nuclear submarine—an excellent piece of equipment which is among the most silent in the world. In view of the success and popularity in the Fleet of the commercially designed Type-21 frigate, will the Minister say whether this means that further offers of design may go to industry in the future?
Perhaps he can tell the House about important new developments taking place on the other side of the Atlantic—and we would very much hope in this country,


too—which are substantially enhancing the capability of anti-submarine warfare and surface submarines, namely, the towed array sonars. Will he confirm that Britain is taking steps to acquire such equipment?
On missiles, there can be no doubt that the strength and capacity of the British electronics industry, after many years in the doldrums, is now much better organised in support of the Royal Navy. Sea Dart and Sea Cat are both fine pieces of equipment. However, will the Minister say something about Sea Wolf and the weight-growth problem of the associated system? Apparently the missile is excellent, but the system is somewhat heavy. Will he confirm whether the Government still intend to deploy this weapon in all the ships originally envisaged?
In regard to Sub-Harpoon, is it the case, following the devaluation of sterling, that it would be cheaper to go ahead with Sub-Martell in conjunction with the French? Even if the contract goes to Sub-Harpoon and the Americans, will the guidance system and homing head be manufactured by GEC Marconi in this country, whose equipment has already been ordered for Sea Harrier and Tornado? Bearing in mind the vital rôle of electronics in modern warfare, will the Minister say whether further resources are to be made available in this vital area of development, since it will affect not only the Navy but every other branch of the Armed Services?
Since we have seen the deployment in recent months of more than 100 Soviet Backfire weapons, 50 per cent. of them in the anti-shipping rôle, is the Minister satisfied that the Royal Navy and our merchant marine will have the protection that they need from air attack in the years ahead as Tornado ADV will not come into service, even if the present schedule is maintained, until 1984? What is intended to fill the gap following the payoff of "Ark Royal"?
It is evident that the Government are spending considerable sums of money on modernising our Polaris missiles. Given the full support of the Opposition for the importance of overall deterent strategy in the alliance, we believe that there should be more than one decision-making centre for a potential aggressor to consider.
The Minister will have seen recent reports emanating from United States Air Force intelligence that the Soviet Union may have achieved a breakthrough in particle beam technology. Such weapons apparently could be deployed within five years or so and might effectively prevent the present generation of ballistic missiles from reaching their targets. In view of the implications that this has for our deterrent capability, can the Minister say whether these reports are well founded and whether urgent consideration will now be given to the development of a cruise missile system, which would have greater chances of penetration because of its low level and could be deployed in our attack submarines, trebling the platforms on which our strategic deterrent could be deployed?
The men and women of the Royal Navy are playing an indispensable part in the maintenance of peace and the security of our islands. They have earned the admiration and gratitude of the House and the nation. They deserve stronger support than they have received from this Government.
Only a strong defence can provide the means of a valid deterrent policy and a basis of achieving a serious arms control agreement with the Soviets, which must be the path of hope. We wish Secretary Vance and the United States Administration well in their search for such an agreement in Geneva. Let this Government not continue to undermine their efforts by unilateral cuts in defence. That is the path to disaster.
There is bound to be concern that at the recent meeting in Brussels the rider had to be inserted that for some individual countries economic circumstances will affect what can be achieved. This was a direct reference to the 3 per cent. target of increase. The suggestion is that this rider was inserted at the request of our own Secretary of State. I hope that that is not so. With our defence expenditure per head less than half of that the United States and one-third less than that of West Germany, I hope that the Minister will not seek to plead that resources cannot be found for Britain to pay her fair share. That is unacceptable for a Government who squander resources on a vastly increased bureaucracy and utterly irrelevant nationalisation costing


the taxpayers billions of pounds and for a Government who are devoting £275 million a year to the National Enterprise Board, which must now be regarded in an even more dubious light than before. For such a Government to argue that resources cannot be found to do what is necessary for the Army, Navy and Air Force is unacceptable.
I call on the Government to announce that they will restore the additional £230 million of cuts scheduled for next year. That would still leave a massive cut of £978 million. I call on the Government to say that in the following years after 1979 it is their aim to achieve the 3 per cent. target that has been agreed.
The Secretary of State, who is well aware of the increasing Soviet threat, is under an obligation to convince his Cabinet colleagues of the importance to this country of increasing defence expenditure in real terms. If the Secretary of State is unable to do that, the path required by both honour and duty is clear: he must resign. To do anything less than make this modest increase and this modest strengthening of our forces would be to breach faith with our allies, to lessen the chances of agreement with the Soviets on the limitation of strategic and conventional arms, and to place peace in jeopardy. It cannot be denied that the price of deterrence is high, but the price of failure to deter is immeasurable.

5.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) started his speech slowly. It took him about seven minutes to get on to the Navy, but he did raise some questions afterwards. I shall try to answer some of them. He will understand that I prefer not to be drawn on questions about equipment. He also asked about sonars, Sea Wolf and Sub-Harpoon. I shall write to him where possible.
I shall be glad to meet the hon. Member's question about the separation of families, home ownership and the problems arising out of the Rent Act. I shall also deal with the southern flank, "Ark Royal" and the cruise missile.
Air defence support of the Fleet is currently provided nationally by the Fleet Air Arm in aircraft operating from "Ark Royal" and by RAF aircraft operated from land bases. As "Ark Royal" phases out of service her aircraft will continue to be operated in a maritime rôle by the RAF.
In addition, we are planning to deploy the Sea Harrier to supply a complementary, quick reaction capability in use particularly against Warsaw Pact reconnaissance and target-indicating aircraft. At the same time, it must be appreciated that our plans for air defence of the Fleet are based on the concept of defence in depth. Therefore, in addition to the aircraft that I have mentioned, we shall be deploying one Sea Dart missile in Type-42 destroyers to provide area air defence against aircraft and missiles, and the Sea Wolf missile system to provide short-range defence especially against missiles.
In operations in the NATO area we would expect to be operating with other forces, so national resources would be supplemented not only by land-based aircraft but by ship-borne aircraft of the United States.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Can the Minister confirm that the squadron of fighters of "Ark Royal" will be replaced by an additional squadron of RAF Phantoms? Will there be an additional RAF squadron to replace the Navy squadron?

Mr. Duffy: I take note of that question.
I turn to cruise missiles. We have no current plans to adopt a weapons system such as the long-range cruise missile. We naturally maintain a close interest through the normal channels in research and development trends with the United States.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Can the Minister say in what way airborne early warning will be given to our Fleet, and in particular to HMS "Invincible" when she is outside the range of land-based aircraft?

Mr. Duffy: I shall be talking about HMS "Invincible" later and I shall try to answer the hon. Member's question.
I now turn to the formal presentation of my remarks. In the last year's Navy


debate I discussed at some length the characteristics of the maritime threat, particularly the risks posed to the free use of the North Atlantic. It has remained our first priority, therefore, to ensure that our contribution to NATO remains effective in the light of the evolving nature of the Soviet threat. In the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas of NATO the United Kingdom provides the main weight of NATO's ready maritime forces.
I shall, with the House's permission, touch upon some of the most significant aspects of the past year as far as the Navy is concerned. I do not want to go over old ground or repeat any portion of the speech that I made a year ago. I prefer to concentrate on some of the changes and follow the hon. Member for Stretford in his generous references to personnel.
As the hon. Member reminded us, the finest equipment is of little value without the men and women who operate, service and support it. I want to concentrate to a greater extent than usual on the men and women of the senior Service and the civilians who are so essential in the support of an all-volunteer Service.
On the equipment side, perhaps the most significant events of the past year have been at the extremes. On the one hand, the Navy has launched its largest surface ship for almost a quarter of a century. At the other end of the scale, in response to the extended fishery protection task, we have ordered and are having built in a very short time scale—to the huge credit of the builders, Hall Russell of Aberdeen—the Island class protection vessels.
Earlier this month Her Majesty the Queen launched HMS "Invincible", the first of the new ASW cruisers. "Invincible" is more than the first of a new class; she is the first of a new concept. She will provide an operating platform from which to deploy ASW helicopters in significant numbers, as well as command and control facilities for a maritime task force, and will contribute to area air defence with the Sea Dart missile system, as well as deploying the Sea Harrier. The keel of the second cruiser was laid last October.
The new Island class will be responsible for policing the new 200-mile fisheries limits and providing deterrent patrols for the protection of the offshore oil

and gas installations. The first, HMS "Jersey", was accepted into service last September; the fifth, HMS "Lindis-farne", will be launched on 1st June and is expected to be operational early next year.
HMS "Jersey", as hon. Members may have noted, was quite up to the job of making the first arrest of a Soviet trawler fishing illegally within our new limits on 7th April. When the present Government arrived in office we saw immediately the need for a new class to meet a new job, a need that would have to be met within a short time scale, and we have provided just that.
I have taken the two extremes—"Invincible" and "Lindisfarne". Between the two the re-equipment programme of the Navy continues. HMS "Battleaxe", the second of the new class of Type 22 frigate, was launched yesterday by Mrs. Audrey Callaghan.
"Battleaxe" will operate the Anglo-French Lynx helicopter. The first deck landings of the Lynx were very successfully conducted with HMS "Birmingham" in February this year.
Improvements to the Navy's capabilities do not rest solely in new design and new construction. Ships are expensive and weapon systems often have an effective life shorter than the hull life of a modern warship. To maintain the fighting effectiveness of the Fleet requires the modernisation of existing ships. The fitting of the early Leander frigates with the Ikara anti-submarine missile is virtually complete; the last ship, "Dido", is currently being refitted. The later, batch 2, Leanders are being fitted with Exocet anti-ship missile systems. "Phoebe" finished her refit last month; currently "Sirius", "Minerva" and "Argonaut" are being fitted with Exocet, and "Danae" is planned to start her refit in July.
It is not often that someone from this Bench—certainly not me—opts to cite an article by the naval correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, but he was kind enough to quote last week, on 11th May, the words of the Captain of "Cleopatra", the first Royal Navy frigate to be fitted with Exocet:
It gives confidence knowing that with these missiles we can face up to almost any other surface warship.


Perhaps the most publicised development for the Navy over the last year, however, has been the extension of the United Kingdom fishing limits to 200 miles on 1st January. The new fisheries regime is far from settled, but the Services have coped well. Hon. Members must be aware of this. Things have settled down remarkably quickly, because the Navy and the RAF have coped well with a complex and evolving set of regulations.
In its progress report on the fishing industry published in March, the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee commented that it was
impressed with the enthusiasm and professionalism of the RN and RAF in fishery protection".
All the evidence so far suggests that the mix of forces, surface ships and aircraft, upon which we decided in 1974 was the correct one, though we shall continue to monitor the success of these forces.
I know that many hon. Members take an interest in the work of the Hydro-grapher. It was thus with great pleasure that I announced on 12th October last that the hydrographic fleet would be retained at its present size for the time being. This represented a clear recognition by the Government of the importance of the national hydrographic tasks that the Navy's Hydrographer performs.
The Government and this House are not alone in their admiration of our hydrographic service. As a measure of the high esteem in which it is held, I am pleased to say that a report, written almost entirely by the British Hydro- graphic Department, on the standardisation of nautical chart symbols was recently adopted "with acclamation". The United Kingdom was unanimously elected to chair a new technical committee to extend this work and several statements were made from the floor that the United Kingdom was the only country which could take on this task. During the first four months of 1977 chart sales are 25 per cent. greater in volume than even the record sales of 1976. I am also pleased—indeed, honoured—to say that the British President of the International Hydrographic Board—Rear-Admiral G. S. Ritchie, who was Hydrographer of the Navy for the period 1960 to 1965—has

been re-elected for a further five-year term of office.
I should like to move on now to the subject of Northern Ireland to make special mention of the contribution there of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, as well as that of the Royal Naval Reserve.

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Tebbit I do not want to break up the formation of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think that inadvertently he might have passed the section of his speech where one would have expected him to deal with the problem of airborne early warning for the Fleet operating outside the range of home-based aircraft.

Mr. Duffy: I did not do that. I was as helpful as I could be in the circumstances. I looked very hard at the hon. Gentleman when I was doing just that, and I did not really expect that what I had to say then would satisfy him. I noted that he moved to the edge of the Bench, but when he relaxed I thought that I had got around that difficult part of our debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot say any more on this occasion. I have been more helpful, in the circumstances, than might have been possible. Where I can add anything to what I have said, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. He knows the position as well as I do. I hope that he will not make too much of this matter.
I return to what I was saying about the contribution of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines and of the Royal Naval Reserve in Northern Ireland. They continue to make a valuable contribution to security in the Province, together with the splendid work there of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Royal Marine commandos take their turn with Army battalions in emergency tours, whilst coastal operations continue to search for arms smuggling. In recent weeks one of our patrolling ships has had notable successes in Carlingford Lough. On 19th March she picked up a small boat carrying explosives. On 21st April she intercepted a merchant ship carrying a quantity of arms. The events of the past fortnight have reminded us all most vividly of the dangers to the security forces in Northern Ireland, and I should


like to pay tribute—and I know that both sides of the House will join me—to all those who have served or are serving in the Province.
The personnel of the Royal Navy, like all Service men, are justly renowned for their personal courage and bravery. The past year has been no exception. Twelve gallantry awards have been made. Hon. Members may have seen in the television series "Sailor" the rescue by an aircrew-man of "Ark Royal" of a United States Navy rating washed over the side of a submarine. Was that not a marvellous series? I am told that the BBC's figures for its viewing public on this series leapt from 4 million to just under 10 million and that the episode to which I have just referred came in for most comment and most praise.
Many of us take the quality of our Navy personnel for granted, but some of us can only suspect their operating circumstances, although some hon. Members present are very familiar with them. We know that we ought not to take this quality for granted, although it is a great tribute to the Service to take it for granted. We take it as axiomatic that all of the Services are among the most professional, the best trained and the most proficient. It is only when one visits our own personnel in NATO postings that one sees just how true that is. They are just that. They are the most proficient. However, it would be complacency of the most dangerous kind to take it for granted that it should be so.
During the past few months I have visited Brussels, both NATO Headquarters and SHAPE, the headquarters of AFSOUTH in Naples—I am willing to assure the hon. Member for Stretford about the matter that he raised concerning the deployment of personnel and staff appointments—and AFNORTH in Oslo. I have talked to senior personnel from many NATO nations. Everyone has spoken highly of the quality of our men and women.
Anyone with responsibilities for the Royal Navy such as I have must constantly be asking himself, however, how long this can continue in view of the environment in which the Service men and women must live and work, in view of the many and varied pressures which impinge upon all of us in one way or another but particularly on the Service man.
We cannot take the very high standards of our Service men for granted. Standards in society as a whole change. We live in an age of increasing violence, emotional instability, uncertain moral standards and fluctuating economic fortunes. The Service man is not exempt from the influence of these changes. In society as a whole careful, skilled, workmanship is no longer to be taken for granted.
So what about the professional skills of our sailors and naval airmen with their responsibility for operating and maintaining ever more complex equipment? In an increasingly materialistic society how are we to keep such men and women properly motivated and self-disciplined as well as well trained? It is the responsibility of Governments to cushion as far as possible the adverse affects of change upon the men and women in the Armed Forces who, because of the particular circumstances of their work, are often less able to take compensating action themselves.
The defence review and the subsequent cuts enforced by economic circumstances have affected the Navy's spending just as that of the other two Services. But the Navy has managed to avoid large-scale redundancies. In fact, on present plans no ratings and not more than 50 officers will leave on redundancy terms, and I hope that they will all be volunteers.
As was announced in the Defence White Paper of 1975, we shall be reducing our total bearing to 74,000 by 1979 to match the requirements of the Fleet and the shore establishments, and recruiting policy over the next two or three years will be framed accordingly.
Recruiting is reasonably good at present. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised but so gratified to learn during a recent visit to HMS "Raleigh", the new entry training establishment for ratings, that we were recruiting graduates to the Jower deck: from there they, as all able men on the lower deck, have the opportunity to progress towards commissioned rank.
We are getting the officers and ratings we need in all except certain specialist branches—but it may not be so a year or two hence when we may be in keener competition with industry and may thus need to expand recruiting. As well as competition, the Navy has so much to


offer industry in the way of the skills and qualities of the officers and senior rates who leave at the end of their engagements, still in their prime, to take up employment in civilian life.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Minister is being extremely interesting and I am sure that the whole House will agree with the tribute that he is paying to the Royal Navy. However, would he agree that the corollary to what he is saying is that these people should be paid properly? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refer to that point before he completes his speech.

Mr. Duffy: I shall, indeed. I gladly give the hon. and gallant Gentleman that assurance.
The hon. Member for Stretford raised the subject of the separation of families and sought an undertaking about it. I am glad to follow the hon. Gentleman and say that long periods of separation from families are no longer the normal order of the day. Under the harmony rules, which have been in operation for some years now, no one should be absent from his base port for longer than nine months or for more than a total of 15 months in a 30 months' commission.
Family separation has been reduced over the years, but by the very nature of the task of the Royal Navy, it will never be eliminated. Consequently, a burden of responsibility for home and family over and above the norm will always fall on the Navy wives, and they deserve recognition for the part that they play. Sailors are marrying younger and young wives, in particular, need a helping hand from the Navy to carry them through the stresses and strains of separation and the crises that brew up whilst their husbands are away. We maintain the Seebohm aim of caring for naval families so that welfare problems are forestalled. I think that it is generally accepted that our existing welfare staff cope admirably when a welfare crisis develops.
We have placed the Commander-in-Chief, Naval Home Command, in overall charge of the welfare, community and housing services and made him personally responsible for ensuring that resources are used and developed to the best possible advantage. New sailors'

and families' advice bureaux have been introduced at the main naval bases and are already proving a well-used source of advice and help on any problem for the sailor and his family. By our placing our senior commander-in-chief in general charge of these services they get a renewed impetus, and the inauguration of the Naval Personal and Family Service under his aegis on 1st April 1977 will be seen as a marked practical improvement in our care of naval families.
It is, of course, the officers of the Royal Navy—and in particular the divisional and commanding officers—who form the first line of our welfare defences. Closely allied to them are the chaplains, about whom I should like to say a special word. The Navy is very well served by chaplains of all denominations, who play a vital part in the support of personnel and their families, and not only by their ministry to the committed Christians. A great deal of their work for the whole Royal Navy community is carried out on an ecumenical basis.
We have appointed certain selected chaplains for specific duty in the larger married quarters estates. This deeper involvement is in its early stages and it will be some time before its benefits can be evaluated, but there are already signs that it has been welcomed by the families concerned.
Of course, the basic need that all families have in common is a home. There the picture now looks pretty bright. Now we are able, broadly speaking—I admit that there are exceptions—to provide a married quarter or hiring for every officer and rating who wants one when he moves to a new job ashore. On home ownership the most recent figures I have show that out of about 6,700 married officers about 5,500 own their own houses, For married ratings the figures are almost 13,000 house owners out of nearly 30,000. We encourage home ownership through long-service advances of pay.
This welcome trend is not without its problems. We have spent a lot of time negotiating on them with the other Departments concerned, and I am glad to acknowledge that such successes as we have had owe a good deal to the readiness of these Departments to recognise the special problems of Service men and


to try to make concessions where they can.
The Ministry of Defence is joining with the Department of the Environment and others in considering what can be done for the officer or man who finds on returning home that he cannot resume occupation of his own house without going through lengthy and sometimes expensive legal procedure. I am certainly not saying that we have catered for all the sailors' problems—that we shall never achieve—but I believe that we know what the main grievances are, and we are doing our best to allay them.

Mr. Churchill: The Minister might not be fully apprised of the situation. It is not just the problem arising out of the fact that officers and families are unable to reoccupy their home once they have rented it. The problem arises from the fact that, because they know it may be difficult to regain their homes, they dare not rent their homes. Wives therefore cannot afford to move to where their husbands may be posted. Families cannot afford to take out a married quarter or some local lodging while at the same time having the full burden of their own home. Unless the law is changed, some specific allowance must be made so that husbands and wives are not kept apart.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. That is a further problem. How far we can go towards its relief is again a matter that I would prefer to be left with me. However, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting the problem on the record.
I want to come to point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). That is my most urgent cause for concern at present, as well as that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members. It is the extent to which national economic difficulties and the measures we are having to take to overcome them have affected Service men. There is no doubt—the 1977 report from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body itself emphasises this—that, because of a number of factors, there has been a loss of pay comparability between the Armed Forces and their civilian counterparts during the past two years. It is also acknowleged that differentials have been badly distorted—as they have

in the community at large—and it follows that middle-ranking and senior officers have come off particularly badly. The Navy is naturally keenly conscious of all this.
What all this adds up to is that Service men start to wonder whether the machinery for settling their pay and allowances gives them a fair deal and whether their interests are being represented as vigorously as they ought to be. This year—and I should like to make this very clear—the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommended, and the Government accepted, the highest Service pay award which could be given without breaking the current pay policy. It recommended food and accommodation charges calculated on exactly the same formulae as in previous years. Naturally, these charges reflected the higher cost of living generally, but if there had been any abatement of them it would have meant that Service men would have been protected from the rising cost of living in a way no other sector of the community is protected.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Will the Minister explain why, if Service pay is frozen, Service costs and lodging cannot be frozen, too?

Mr. Duffy: That is precisely what I have just explained.
Of course, pay policy has created problems for the Services, as it has in pay structures throughout the country. The AFPRB has ensured by its very clear recommendations that the Government are fully aware of these problems. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has assured the Services that as we enter the period following phase 2 he will ensure that the needs of the Services are fully represented.

Mr. Churchill:: Before the Minister leaves the question of service pay, will he explain how it is that average industrial earnings over the last two years under phases 1 and 2 of the Government's pay policy have increased by 19·9 per cent., as was disclosed in a parliamentary reply to me only this week, yet Service pay has gone up by 5 per cent. less? If it had been increased by 10 per cent. this year, the Forces would still not have been above the average industrial increase for the period.

Mr. Duffy: I have explained why the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommended and the Government felt obliged to accept the highest Service pay award which could be given without breaking the current pay policy. I am aware of the growth that has taken place during the last year in industrial earnings, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend but is rather that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
One of the advantages of my job is the opportunities it gives me to meet and talk to the men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. I know from my visits to ship and shore establishments what they are feeling and thinking, because they express it to me. I always feel that it is a great privilege for me to meet and talk with them. They represent a pretty complete cross-section of our society.
Another cause for satisfaction which, I find in my visits to the Fleet and the shore establishments is that the Navy provides very little reflection of the less pleasant aspects of some sections of our modern society. The men are not angels and they are certainly not sissies. However, there is no denying, from both the statistical approach and personal judgment, that conduct in the Navy is far better than it was 25 years ago. This stems not from a rigid imposition of a disciplinary code but rather from an intelligent recognition by officers and ratings alike that self-discipline is an essential ingredient of any healthy community.
Last week I visited the Royal Navy Detention Quarters at Portsmouth. This is not a particularly well-known facet of naval life, nor would I wish it to be. But what impressed me was the fact that the place was half empty and that numbers have been declining steadily over the past few years at a time when the prison population is tending to increase. This is yet another instance of the Navy offering higher standards and thus continuing to provide an example for the community as a whole.
I make no excuse for talking at some length about the men and women in uniform, because in an era of technological marvels it is the hardware that usually makes the headlines. The humans often come a poor second—but never, I

hope, in the Navy. During my time as Navy Minister I have made a point of visiting as many ships and establishments as possible and meeting all the men and women I could. Yesterday I was at sea in the Channel in HMS "Antrim". Next week I am planning to go to sea in one of the new Island class as well as to visit shore establishments such as Portland and Plymouth. So I speak from firsthand knowledge when I tell the House that their quality is inspiring, their morale is high, and it is my privilege to see to it that their problems are known in Whitehall and treated with the sympathy and urgency they deserve.
This year is the sixtieth anniversary of the Women's Royal Naval Service. I trust that the House will permit me to say more about the WRNS than is usual in debates. It is a source of regret to me personally that, though hon. Members are willing to champion their old Services—and none more so than the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and his fellow ex-Royal Marines, who provide the most fervent body in this House in support of any of the Services, there is no such group, certainly not among our women Members, prepared to champion the WRNS. The WRNS finds no champion among female hon. Members. I cannot even see one attending this debate.
The officer corps of the WRNS is unique in that all members spend some time as ratings. WRNS officers are gradually, but increasingly, becoming more interchangeable with Royal Navy officers in many appointments in shore establishments and on command staffs. Despite their relatively small numbers, there are many with the qualifications and ability for these tasks, and with the broader based training they receive, their talents, and the dedication which goes with them, are being put to very positive advantage in both the operational and the support organisations. The majority of WRNS officers serve for about six and a half years, but those who remain for a full career now have the opportunity of further training at both the Royal Naval Staff College and the National Defence College. In all ranks they play their full part in the life and work of the Royal Navy.
The WRNS rating trained strength is around 2,750. All ratings now enter on


notice engagements and stay, on average, about three and a quarter years in the Service. As with their officers, joint training allows greater flexibility in movement of all ratings serving in the Royal Navy. An increasing number of shore billets are becoming interchangeable between the Royal Navy and WRNS and in particular the regulating branch will be benefiting from this change later this year.
Through its initial training the WRNS is becoming more integrated; WRNS officer training moved last autumn from Greenwich to Dartmouth; Royal Navy rating new entry training is being concentrated in HMS "Raleigh" at Torpoint outside Plymouth and WRNS new entry training will be moving to "Raleigh" from HMS "Dauntless" near Reading. My personal belief is that there is scope for increasing integration of the WRNS in the full life of the Navy, but this is an area which needs very sensitive treatment. Prejudice and convention can all to easily damage what has been achieved: we need to hasten slowly.
I would not want to omit a reference to the Reserves, particularly after such an eventful year for them. On 1st January the post of Admiral Commanding Reserves lapsed and direct responsibility for command and control of the volunteer naval Reserves passed to Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command. This change will permit even closer integration between the Royal Navy and the Reserves.
Last September the tragic sinking of HMS "Fittleton" was an abrupt reminder of the ever-present risks of life at sea. It was also a very real reminder of the demands made of members of the Reserves as an operational component of the Fleet. Following the tragedy we examined the procedures for training and the qualifications for command, but came to the conclusion that no fundamental changes were necessary.
At the end of March I visited Royal Navy and Royal Marine Reserve units on Merseyside. I have nothing but praise for these men and women who give up their spare time to make a very important contribution towards the defence effort. Credit is also due to their families and employers who also make their sacrifices in support of the Reservists. All of them

are people who are motivated to stand up in support of their country and defence, a vital part in our jigsaw of deterrence.
If I say relatively little about the civilian staff who serve the Navy, that is only because my time is limited. The Navy employs over 70,000 civilians at home and abroad, the majority of whom, almost 85 per cent., are employed in direct support of the Fleet, in the dockyards, in stores and supplies depots, and manning the Royal Fleet auxiliaries. In the Royal Navy the whole of the supplies, stores and transport organisation is manned by civilians. This is not the case in the other two Services.
I must need be selective, but I should like to mention the Royal Dockyards. Any organisation of the size and complexity of the Royal Dockyards needs to be looked at closely to ensure that we are getting the best return on investment. We are developing management systems for the better planning, estimating and control of work to improve performance. The introduction last April of the Dockyard Services Vote was designed to gather together funds previously spread over several Defence Votes to introduce greater financial discipline into the administration of the dockyards as a stimulus to management.
On the other side, the object of the new wages structure trial at Chatham has been to create a pattern of remuneration, which, in association with new management techniques, will provide scope for increasing efficiency and job satisfaction for all employees. If the trial proves successful and when national pay policy permits, we hope to extend the scheme to the other yards. A major modernisation programme is currently in hand. But of one thing I should like to assure the House, and particularly hon. Members with constituency interests in the dockyards: for the foreseeable future we shall require all four home dockyards.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Under-Secretary explain why, since the Royal Navy today has fewer than one-third as many ships as it had 20 years ago, it has not been possible to reduce the number of dockyards in use?

Mr. Duffy: Certainly that is a fair question. I acknowledge that the number of ships has been reduced, but, although


that may have taken place, the complexities of the ships that remain have increased. Hon. Gentlemen present who represent dockyard constituencies will know that the Navy now makes much greater demands on the skill of the work force in their constituencies. More specialist training is necessary. New weapons systems and new propulsion systems such as nuclear power have placed a greater requirement on the support provided by the dockyards. This is reflected in the dockyards represented by hon. Members in the House today.
Finally, whilst on the subject of the dockyards I should like to pay a special tribute to the work of Vic Feather, whose death last summer was a great loss to all of my colleagues on the Royal Dockyards Policy Board, and to myself.
As is the case with their Service colleagues, the size of the civilian staff is being reduced. The 1974 defence review and the 1976 expenditure review together required substantial savings to be made by 1979. A degree of redundancy is, I regret, unavoidable but we are doing everything possible to keep it to a minimum. The staff associations and trade unions are, of course, being kept informed and consulted as necessary. The savings we have achieved so far have been designed to have the minimum effect on the operational capability of the Fleet and we shall not relax our endeavours to minimise the impact of those yet to be made.
I continue to be impressed with the high quality of our civilian staff, both at home and abroad. The Navy could not manage without them. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of their continued loyalty and dedication despite the somewhat unsettled background which, unfortunately, cannot be avoided in a period when defence expenditure reductions are being sought.
I have not made a systematic speech on the capabilities of the senior Service. I have not attempted a wide conspectus of the Navy's activities over the last year. Hon. Members can find all this in the defence White Paper. Rather I have preferred to concentrate on a few themes and elaborate to a far greater degree than is usually possible. I have chosen to con

centrate on some of the items which concern me as Navy Minister. I have attempted to draw attention to matters which are every bit as important as numerical ratios of forces and building programmes—above all, the men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
I take great pride in the achievements and the very high standards of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. But I hope that from what I have said the House will be aware that I do not take these things for granted.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I should like to join the Minister in praising the devotion of the men and women of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and more particularly the Women's Royal Naval Service. After all, I married a Wren! We all know that the Minister's heart is with the Royal Navy, and I suppose that the same applies to his superior, the Secretary of State for Defence, although he seems to be rather kicked around by the Cabinet. I believe that the villain of the piece so far as the Services are concerned is that poacher turned gamekeeper, the gentleman who presided over the first of many cuts in the Royal Navy, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that he began as Secretary of State for Defence with more popularity than any of his predecessors because he talked the language and apparently understood the problem. I am sorry to say that after four or more years in office he became an absolute disaster to the Forces.
I believe that the Minister has to continue fighting the whole time against his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and I hope that what is said in this debate will help him and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to do so, because it is obvious that the cuts that have been made by the present Government have gone far too far. The Minister, like anybody who associates himself with NATO, Western European Union or any such organisation, will know what damage has been done to the standing of our forces in Europe and the world.
I want to divide my remarks into two broad headings, strategic and tactical. I believe that the problem we in this country have always had to face since way


back in history is that of getting a correct balance between a Continental and a maritime strategy. At the moment the balance has gone far too far one way, too far towards a Continental strategy. The reason for this is the fault of the Government, because it stems from direct party political policy. We are bound to keep a certain number of troops in Europe under the Brussels Treaty. If the Government were to "rat" on that undertaking, there would be a major international political row. Therefore, the Government maintain a Continental strategy. I am not saying that it is not necessary to have forces in Europe, but they maintain these forces and they therefore neglect what is realised, even by soldiers whom I met in a NATO exercise last week, as the greatest threat to NATO—the threat to the flanks. The maritime threat, is the area of major Government neglect which will have serious consequences.
I was always taught to try to discover what was the objective of a potential enemy and then assess the method he would use. What is the objective of the Soviet Union in trying to exploit our defence? In the words of Mr. Brezhnev last year,
Detente in no way rescinds or can rescind the laws of class struggle.
Pravda said that the struggle must go on until
the complete and final victory of communism on a world scale".
I borrow another quotation from my hon. and gallant Frend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who uses it frequently. It comes from President Kennedy. He said that the danger to the West would be of being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate. The stalemate is occurring in the centre and the nibbling is taking place on the flanks.
It is at last being realised that it is in the field of maritime strategy that the danger mainly lies. That was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) when he opened the debate. My hon. Friend mentioned the northern flank. Our primary task in war or in time of tension is to reinforce the northern flank. That is the job of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force. I believe that our capacity to reinforce the northern

flank has been gravely eroded. We are being nibbled to death not only on the northern flank but in Iceland and Denmark—the cork in the bottle of the Baltic.
On the southern flank, the problem of the Iberian Peninsula has not yet been settled. There is the problem of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey—the cork in the bottle of the Black Sea. What will happen in Yugoslavia when Marshal Tito dies? There are also the problems of the Middle East. These are both military and maritime problems.
There is another flank which gives the Soviet Union its best hope of obtaining its objective without moving a single soldier or running the risk of nuclear war—that is, by interrupting our communications in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. The Minister knows that these communications are vital for bringing reinforcements over from the United States in the event of war or in time of tension. We can fly troops over in large aircraft, but we cannot bring their stores. They must come by sea. About 90 per cent. must come by sea, As my hon. Friend said, we are now facing the biggest submarine threat that the world has ever known from the Soviet Navy.
There is also the question of oil supplies. We now have to pay four times more for oil than we did a few years ago. We should remember that it was Mr. Brezhnev who told the Arabs in 1975 that they should put up their oil prices. We know the effect that that has had on our economy. It has not affected the Russian economy very much, but it has had an enormous effect on the economy of the West.
There is another factor about which I should like some information. I tried to get information on this matter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in the recent debate on the Royal Air Force. The Minister, in opening the debate today, said that the Royal Navy would be protected from air and submarine attack. If we have only 20 Sea Harriers, how will a British component of a NATO force reacting to Soviet threats to our communications in the South Atlantic or the Indian Ocean be protected from the air? There has been no answer to that question. I do not believe that the Minister has one. If so, he should tell the country and we


shall then be able to appreciate the true seriousness of our position.
I contend that the Soviet Union, by taking over Western influence in Southern Africa—it could do that within the next five to 10 years—would then control 90 per cent. of the world's platinum, 80 per cent. of gold and vanadium, some 75 per cent. of the world's manganese, 60 to 80 per cent. of its chrome and copper production, 60 per cent. of diamond output and more than 50 per cent. of the world's uranium reserves. If Mr. Brezhnev told the Arabs what to do about oil prices, what could the Soviet Union not do about those vital minerals? If those supplies, through our political folly in permitting the creation of Marxist States in Southern Africa or by the weakness of our sea communications, were to be controlled by the Soviet Union. Europe would have to surrender because its industries would be unable to continue. The battle that we face is not the battle of the Atlantic but the battle for resources. I am glad that those who are responsible for maintaining our shield in Europe have begun to appreciate that the battle for resources is vital, because that is where the most likely threat lies.
I turn now to the tactical side. What are the Government doing about some of the threats which have been outlined this afternoon? My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford underlined the importance to NATO of Northern Norway. How do we reinforce that area? In the past we had aircraft carriers, commando carriers and amphibious assault shipping to land vehicles and tanks. Now we have to rely on British Railways rail ferries. How can we expect merchant seamen to risk their lives at the start of hostility? It does not make sense. How do the Government propose to fulfil their commitment to reinforce that area in time of war? I have asked that question on a number of occasions and had no answer. If they get there before the balloon goes up, well and good, but what happens if they do not and they are opposed?
Another major threat comes from Soviet submarines. The Soviet Union has 325 submarines, of which 130 are nuclear. The numbers are coming down slightly but the nuclear component is going up. Within the next few years the Soviet

Union will have a wholly nuclear submarine fleet. These submarines are clearly designed to cut our communications.
How are we to prevent the cutting of our communications? By frigates, destroyers, anti-submarine helicopters and Nimrod aircraft. Yet these are the very things that the Government have cut. Nine frigates have been cut from the proposed building programme over the next few years. The Nimrods are to be cut under the Government's proposals. It is now possible that they are going to use aircraft which were to be scrapped as airborne early warning aircraft. Are we now to use all the Nimrods and not scrap any? I hope that is so and that the Minister will confirm this.
We are often told not to worry about the small number of frigates because a Sea King is equivalent to a frigate in antisubmarine warfare. What reserves have we got of Sea Kings? What reserves have we got of Sea King pilots? In time of emergency, because of Government cuts, we shall have to improvise. We now have large fleets of container ships and tankers which travel not at eight knots, but at speeds of 16 to 20 knots. These ships could be used, because they have large flat decks, to carry helicopters for anti-submarine warfare. But it can be done only with adequate reserves of Sea Kings and pilots. In the Battle of Britain the real shortage was a shortage of pilots. We need an emergency scheme for training pilots in time of tension. I am told that there is no such scheme and that there is virtually no reserve of pilots. I hope that the Minister will take that matter up. He will have seen that it has been raised in a number of Service magazines. It is extremely worrying, and he should take action.
No doubt the Minister will say that we have "Invincible". She is two years late already. However, I am delighted that "Invincible" is being built. I hope that a third of the class will be ordered in the near future. "Invincible" will be a very expensive ship, but she will be worth it. I believe that the Minister should now start thinking about smaller carriers of some 8,000 tons, such as the Vosper-Thornycroft mini-carrier which carries eight V/STOL aircraft or large helicopters plus two smaller helicopters. Four of these ships might be as useful as


one "Invincible". I think that that matter should be gone into.
Above all, I want to press the Minister on the question of the conversion of container ships and tankers, which depend on adequate reserves of helicopters and pilots.
The hon. Gentleman praised the Isles class vessels which are just coming into service, but I have my doubts about them. They are slow and do not carry helicopters. I am not sure that it would not have been better to convert the distant-water trawlers that are now tied up in Hull and Grimsby. I do not know whether such a conversion, which was urged by Iceland, has been investigated, but I hope that the Minister will take the point. He has said that the Isles class vessels are the policeman on the beat. That may be so, but we must also have faster vessels for quick reaction forces. I hope that the Minister will take up this point when he replies.
We have reached the missile age, and I hope that when we have our quick reaction force of FPBs they will be capable of being armed with missiles in time of war. If they are, they will then be useful for protecting our oil rigs, fishing rights and conservation areas in peace time as well as operations in time of war. We entered the missile age rather slowly, but now things have started to move.
Is it true that the Government are updating the Polaris, as reported in the Dai Mail on 16th March? I hope it is true and that it will be confirmed.
Sub-Harpoon has been mentioned today. An article in the Daily Telegraph on 13th May said that the American Sub-Harpoon that we intend to buy had suffered a year's setback, and there is a growing belief that the Americans may cancel it. I question that very much. Today I, like other hon. Members, received a letter from McDonnell-Douglas saying that this was entirely untrue. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is so. The Sub-Harpoon is essential. If we had our own missile, that would be fine, but as we now do not it is essential that we should have the Sub-Harpoon. It is vital that our nuclear submarines should be armed with missiles rather than the old-fashioned torpedoes with which they are armed today.
What are the Government doing to sell Sea Wolf and Sea Skua to the United States of America? I have been in America recently, and a lot of people there do not know anything about Sea Wolf. It is not the fault of our Ambassador or the sales staff, but our opposite numbers in Congress do not know anything about this weapon system. This is a great pity because Sea Wolf is a world-beating missile—it is the only anti-missile missile that has been developed in the West to date. The Americans are developing one but they will not have it ready for another six or seven years. We should therefore be able to make a sale.
Recently I visited Australia and New Zealand and discovered that there is a big potential for both these great countries to buy British again for their navies. Both are thinking in terms of more frigates and fast patrol boats. The Australians believe that the Sea Harriers could give HMAS "Melbourne" a new lease of life. She is an old carrier and too slow to operate fixed-wing aircraft. However, she could operate V-STOL aircraft, which would mean that she could carry on for perhaps another 10 years at a great saving. I hope that the Minister will ensure that he is giving these matters as much support as possible.
I turn now to the size and scope of the Russian mercantile fleet. Last year the General Council of British Shipping produced a pamphlet entitled "The Red Ensign versus the Red Flag". This shows that the Russians are rapidly becoming one of the largest mercantile marine carriers in the world. Their fleet is Government-controlled, so it does not matter if it loses money. The Russians are cutting freight rates that have been set on an international basis, and if this sort of practice goes on it could be extremely serious for us.
There are already practically no British passenger liners left—most have been sold to the Greeks and Russians. It is much more serious for us if the Russians continue to undercut us in areas like the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic and the Pacific in freight carrying. This could be very dangerous indeed, and although it is not the Minister's responsibility I hope that he is keeping an eye on the situation. The Council of Shipping points out that the British mercantile marine earns £800


million a year in invisibles and a further £400 million with import savings.
Admiral Sir John Treacher spoke of this recently when he said that he was extremely concerned about such matters. He said:
If you look at the maritime scene today you will see the Soviet Union, already with 20 million tons of ocean-going shipping, with another 5 million tons of sophisticated ships laid down, who are not in business commercially to make a profit in the carriage of trade. The rates they operate are 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. below conference rates.
That is the point. This shipping is not being produced to carry food or raw materials—the Soviet has enough of both. These ships are being produced to undercut the maritime power of the West.
On the question of pay, the Minister has this well in mind. He got an indication of it after Question Time today when we were talking about the police. It is said that these matters will be cleared up in phase 3, and I understand that the Minister cannot now give definite pledges. However, I ask him to take it from me that in both the Army and the Navy—and I have recently visited some Army units—everyone is getting thoroughly fed up and regards the situation as unfair. They feel that the Government give them something with one hand and then take it away with the other. After the last pay increases, an able seaman in barracks got an increase of 50p in his pocket, a petty officer got from 90p to £2·20 and a lieutenant-commander got between 50p and £1·30p. This sort of money is chickenfeed in the light of inflation today, and it is causing grave dissension in the Services. I hope that the Secretary of State will appeal to the Chancellor on this matter.
Both sides of the House appreciate everything that is done by the maritime Services of this country—and in that category I include the Merchant Navy. They are under great pressure from inflation, from the economic conditions prevailing in the world and from the Soviet Union rapidly becoming the greatest sea power in the world. A lot of American shipping is in mothballs, and from the point of view of operational shipping the Soviet Union may today be the largest operational navy in the world.
On the future balance between NATO and the Soviet Union, the Americans have just started rearming and their rearmament will catch up in some five years. The real danger period lies, therefore, in the next five years. In that period there is a danger of the Soviet Union having the capability of cutting our sea communications, exercising blackmail and forcing us to surrender.
I hope that when he is arguing about further cuts the Minister will bear in mind, and the country will realise, the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that when the Conservatives return to power cuts in our defence Forces will end.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I find myself as a maiden speaker in this Chamber very much in the rôle of a repentant sinner. In a previous incarnation it was never my practice to treat Members of Parliament with courtesy or indulgence by interviewing them without interruption. As I stand here somewhat nervously, without the benefit of Autocue, I am confident that the House will treat me with the courtesy and indulgence that I did not give to other hon. Members on previous occasions.
I stand here with very mixed feelings. First, I have a feeling of awe that I am speaking in a Chamber that has echoed to the oratory of giants of the past. I also have a feeling of happiness in that I have achieved an ambition of being a member of this central forum of our nation. As well, I have a feeling of sadness because of the occasion that gave rise to the by-election in which I was successful—the death of Tony Crosland. I have looked at several maiden speeches and have seen that often the mention of the previous Member has been somewhat perfunctory. That would not suffice on this occasion. For me this must be a matter of real emotion. I have always regarded myself as an intellectual disciple of Tony Crosland. It was on his book "The Future of Socialism" that I cut my political teeth in the 1950s. It is still a basic text for Social Democrats.
Emotion, too, is felt by the House-sadness at the loss of a great man and at seeing a career cut short in its prime. Tony Crosland was many things. He was an able Minister who held several


portfolios with great distinction. His career was a long preparation for a culmination, a consummation, which it never reached—control of the economic destiny of this country. He was also an honest, radical thinker of great intellectual penetration, as I know from interviews I conducted with him on television, and as the House knows from his speeches. He was a man of great originality of thought, and, most of all, for all his deep seriousness, he was a very warm and very human man who loved life, who was open, accessible, and loved and respected by both sides of the House, just as he was loved in his constituency, as I can testify.
Therefore, I pay tribute to Tony Crosland and recognise, in doing so, the enormous strength he secured by being the representative of the borough of Grimsby, a borough that he was as proud to represent as I am. Hon. Members who had the pleasure of going to Grimsby during the recent by-election will have come away very impressed by Grimsby, impressed by a town that, unlike many urban constituencies, is not a slice of somewhere else, is not a vast, amorphous urban nothingness, but a community in its own right, with a sense of pride and identity which even the best endeavours of local government reorganisation and the Post Office have not been able to undermine.
Visitors will have been impressed, too, by the friendliness of a community which has traditionally been slightly isolated but, perhaps as a consequence, is friendly, warm and welcoming. They will have been impressed, finally, by the civic pride of Grimsby, which is shown in its schools, housing and leisure facilities—all the things that make for the good life, that make it a good place to live in and have given it a long tradition of industrial development sponsored by the council.
Obviously, hon. Members will be anxious for me to continue at some length on the subject of Grimsby's history over the past 2,000 years. Unfortunately, I shall have to disappoint them by talking only briefly about Grimsby today. It has the image of a fishing town. I am sure that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and my hon. Friends who represent Hull constituencies will concede that I am not being at all controversial

when I say that Grimsby is the foremost fishing port on the Humber as well as in this country, but it is also far more than a fishing town. In the post-war period, thanks to the council's foresight and industrial strategy, Grimsby has attracted a wide range of other industries—textiles, chemicals and food processing, to name but a few.
Grimsby is a town with problems. It would not be a part of this country if it did not have problems. It has a higher-than-average unemployment rate, a pressing need for more industrial diversity, more light industry and more white-collar jobs of the kind that will stop young people from drifting away, and certainly a pressing need for an improvement in communications, including the rapid completion of the M180. Now Grimsby has development area status, a potent weapon in the competition for development, in which it is strenuously engaged.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive my proper sense of pride in Grimsby. I should like an even fuller and more tumultuous House to hear me extol its virtues. However, I want to return to the main thread of the debate and specifically to the problems of fishery protection.
I have said that Grimsby is more than a fishing town, but its fishing industry, like the rest of the fishing industry, has been badly battered in recent years. On the deep-water, distant-water side, it has been badly battered because of the closure of the Icelandic grounds and the curtailment of our fishing effort in other distant-water grounds. It has also been badly battered by the situation that has been developing in the North Sea in recent years, a situation that has been approaching the dimensions of a tragedy, with a more and more massive fishing effort pursuing smaller and smaller fish and with a consequent danger of the extinction of this vital national resource. There is a major threat to our national heritage.
I shall not go into all the reasons. I shall not go into the controversy over the common fisheries policy. I do not want to be controversial, except to say that I think—it is a personal view—that the only solution, the only effective guarantee for our fishing industry, is our own exclusive 50-mile limit for British fishermen. That is essential for our industry.
Whatever the shape of limits, whatever the future pattern of control in the Common Market pool, we face a real problem of policing and protecting not only our own limits, whatever they may be, but the 270,000 square miles of Common Market fishing waters. This must pose an increasing problem for the Royal Navy I sometimes wonder how adequately it is equipped for this vital rôle. Frigates are obviously invaluable. They have the speed that is necessary to deal with even the fastest of Russian trawlers, but the Icelandic situation showed the limits of the frigates—limits of manoeuvrability and the fact that, like television interviewers, they have a somewhat thin skin. We have the ships of the Island class, but while they are more manoeuvrable, they lack something in speed.
Therefore, I ask how adequately we are prepared for the new situation that is developing with not only the 200-mile Common Market pool but the possibility—I hope the probability and certainty—of our own exclusive 50-mile fishing limit. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has already told us about the mixture of ships decided in 1974, will pay more attention to this problem when he winds up the debate, because the situation has changed drastically since 1974. I should welcome assurances from him both as to how well equipped the Navy is for the enormous problem of fishery protection and policing and how well it will be equipped in the coming years to play a vital rôle for the fishing industry and for my constituency.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: It is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) immediately after he has made his maiden speech. His speech had eloquence and depth, particularly when he spoke of his predecessor, whom he rightly described as a person who was warm and human. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree wholeheartedly with that.
The only matter on which I cannot agree with the hon. Member was his admiration for the book written by his predecessor, "The Future of Socialism". Some of us are dedicated to seeing that

the future of Socialism is kept within the strictest territorial limits. I say that merely in a jocular fashion. The hon. Gentleman's tribute to his predecessor was wholly appropriate, eloquent and clearly deeply felt.
The hon. Gentleman has come to the House by way of a by-election. I, too, came to the House via a by-election, and I know that by-elections are a great strain. However, the hon. Gentleman is looking extremely relaxed, perhaps because of his experience in television. He is well known in his part of the country and elsewhere as an interviewer. If the proceedings of the House are televised in due course, his contributions will no doubt be even more formidable than the admirable maiden speech that we have just heard.
I know that hon. Members on both sides will wish the hon. Gentleman, I do not say a long career in the House, which would be going too far across political boundaries, but a very happy time in the House. We look forward to hearing from him frequently and we are grateful for what he said.
The hon. Gentleman also dealt with a matter that is dear to my heart, although I do not represent one of the candidates for the title of "principal fishing port". Had he said a word about oysters, that would have been a different matter. I shall leave it to those of my hon. Friends who represent fishing ports to argue about which is the principal fishing port. Grimsby is certainly in the top rank.
The hon. Gentleman spoke appropriately about the problems of fishery protection, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to his points. There is no doubt that, in spite of the expansion that has been made and what is planned in the Navy's capability in this sphere, there are doubts on both sides of the House about whether these arrangements will be adequate to police a 200-mile or even a 50-mile limit. I had the pleasure of being the Navy Minister during one of the so-called cod wars. We won those wars, but there does not seem to be sufficient knowledge that we did so. They were won because of the skill of the Navy in operating ships which, as the hon. Member for Grimsby said, were possibly not ideal for that purpose. We had frigates and Iceland had the gunboat "Thor", which is a


husky little vessel but one that a frigate could blow out of the water as easily as turning a telescope on it. Yet our vessels put up with bumping and hazardous tactics in desperately rough seas and men's lives were put at hazard, even though right was on our side.
Hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies know better than I that the International Court made a ruling that we could catch, if my memory serves me right, 180,000 tons of fish a year from those waters. Even though, in negotiations, we agreed to go down to 150,000 tons, the Icelanders would not accept that. We went ahead and caught what we were entitled to catch—that is, about 180,000 tons. We caught up to the top of the legal limit. The Icelanders put our men and their own in jeopardy. They could have had a smaller catch taken from those waters by peaceful methods. That possibly illustrates the fact that the use of force and bullying tactics—a small boy bullying a bigger boy because he knows that the bigger boy will be restrained—does not always pay.
It is my profound belief that the Icelanders did not win and that the Navy triumphed. However, I have great admiration for the Icelandic people and I hope that our friendship will continue in spite of these difficulties. Everybody here knows the importance of the base at Keflavik. We hope that a happier chapter will emerge in Anglo-Icelandic relationships, but nobody should think that the Navy was not triumphant in looking after the fishermen's interests. The hon. Member for Grimsby described his constituency as having been battered by the fishery situation. He was right, but I am sure he would acknowledge that that is not in any way the fault of the Navy.
I now want to pay tribute to the work that was done for the British Navy by Sir Peter Kirk. It is right that I should do this because I took over from him as Navy Minister. Many of us were at his memorial service today. He was devoted to the cause of Europe. He enjoyed immensely his time with the Royal Navy—as, indeed, everyone does who holds that post. I know that the Minister would wish to pay tribute to what he did for the Royal Navy, particularly in a matter that the Minister has already mentioned, and that is the personnel side. One thing that he did which was of great long-term

value was to persuade Lord Seebohm to undertake the task of submitting a report on the general supportive mechanism that is provided for the personnel of the Royal Navy.
That report eventually came to me while I was Minister, and it is now being implemented—although, perhaps, a little more gradually than either I or the Minister would like. However, we appreciate the financial constraints. I hope that the House will agree that it is appropriate to put on record the gratitude that many of us feel for the work that Peter Kirk did, not only in Europe but for the Royal Navy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I have just recovered from a rather arduous weekend that I spent in the Mediterranean at the invitation of the C-in-C Navy Eur.—it is difficult to work out and follow this jargon but that is the Commander-in-Chief of the Naval Forces in Europe. The visit was substantially organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), and I am grateful to him for that. We were accompanied by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who was able to put us right in talking correctly about being on and not in the ships. I thought I had got those things right when I was Navy Minister, but one forgets once one has been out of office for a little while. My hon. and gallant Friend was a most helpful companion in our visit to the American Sixth Fleet.
The Sixth Fleet is, of course, the real NATO maritime power in the Mediterranean. It sustains NATO on that front. I shall have more to say about the southern flank in a moment. I hope that I shall cause the Minister no difficulty with his hon. Friends below the Gangway when I say that it was gratifying to find a British deployment in the Mediterranean. There was a British frigate there and also HMS "Hermes", upon which ship our party spent one night. It was good to see that from time to time we have a powerful force in the Mediterranean and a powerful British presence in such an exercise as Dawn Patrol, which was the exercise we were watching. However, I must express my chagrin that there is now no permanent British presence in the Mediterranean. I know that there is no use in taxing the Minister with


this, because I appreciate that he must keep in order his hon. Friends below the Gangway and the left wing of his party. Nevertheless, I hope that that policy may be reversed.
There are certain questions that it is reasonable to put to the Minister today. My hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend who were in the Mediterranean with me would no doubt agree that we found universal consternation among the two American admirals whom we met and among our own personnel about the withdrawal of the Nimrods from Malta. There is no doubt that this is a valuable contribution to the southern flank and that it is, in the view of the real experts, virtually irreplaceable and wholly significant in a maritime context. It provides a capability that could not easily be replaced. The Italians may attempt to do something to take its place with their Atlantiques, and the American Forces may try to help, but the universal view that we encountered in naval circles—and in air force circles as well—was that these Nimrods are virtually irreplaceable. I hope that I can persuade the Undersecretary to exert all the influence he can on the Secretary of State, and thus on the Cabinet, to ensure that the decision that they should be withdrawn is reversed.
While I was in the Mediterranean it was particularly pleasant to find, in one of the American ships which we visited, a young lieutenant of the Royal Navy who had been seconded to and was working with the American Navy. I hope that the Minister will say something about these valuable exchanges. I had met this officer previously on one of our small patrol craft, HMS "Tenacity". He was working with the Americans to mutual advantage. I hope that the Minister will plan for extensions to this scheme whereby our people are seconded for a while to allied navies, and vice versa.
That ties in with what the Minister said in his informative speech about training. We train for about 40 nations, and I have never been entirely happy that we get as much from this as we should. This is a growth sector. If these foreign navies are to be trained, it is best that they should be trained by our Royal Navy. That may sound a little jingoistic, but we are

vastly proud of our Navy and it has a world-wide reputation.
We should expand the training facilities that we make available for other nations and charge properly for them. The sums earned from such training facilities should be contra-accounted against defence Votes. I suggested this in a debate about two years ago and was told that the Ministry was working on it. I have heard nothing since, but perhaps the Minister could refer to it later.
The Minister spoke earlier about the Wrens. What a splendid force they are. The late Sir Peter Kirk started the tradition among Navy Ministers to have a Wren on their staff. The WRNS work very hard, are very efficient and provide a pleasant relief to Ministers and their staffs from the all-male company of the Admiralty Board. I pay tribute to Commandant McBride, the relatively new Commandant of the WRNS. She is a lady of enormous ability and vigour. In my day she commanded HMS "Dauntless" the WRNS training establishment, and I am sure that she will follow in the admirable tradition of her predecessor, Commandant Talbot.
The Minister was preaching to the converted when he spoke about the need to appreciate how useful and valuable the WRNS is. It will be interesting to see how much further he can expand job opportunities for WRNS personnel. A survey was conducted while I was a Minister and I hope that it will be useful to him. The whole House is devoted to the cause of the WRNS. It does not lack champions.
Turning from the domestic scene, I should like to refer to some areas of strategic importance further afield. The Secretary of State should, I believe, launch a major programme to convince our allies that the geographical guidelines of NATO do not make sense any more. They are wholly artificial, and it is not sensible to be confined, for example, by the Tropic of Cancer. The whole of NATO should be recast. Perhaps it needs the shock treatment of a new master plan. It must become the shield for the whole of the free world and have no geographical limitations.
Until recently I was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, and I managed to get


acceptance there of a resolution that NATO's scope should be widened, that its geographical limitations should be dropped and that its composition should be altered, though still based, of course, on democracies. I managed to get through a resolution that Spain should be requested to join NATO once free elections had taken place there. Those free elections now seem likely, and I hope that as soon as there is a democratic Government in Spain we shall do all we can within NATO to support Spanish membership of the Alliance. There should also be further help given to Portugal, which is a member of NATO, to update its forces. I was very concerned about this when I visited Lisbon recently, as were the defence chiefs.
The western end of the Mediterranean presents a more favourable picture for NATO in the immediate future than does the other end, where there is still considerable chaos. The Government should consider a low-cost improvement on the Iberian Peninsula. It is wrong that there should be no domination of the Straits of Gibraltar by guns or missiles. A relatively low-cost way of solving this problem would be to install a static Exocet there. I have talked about this possibility with Gibraltar's Premier, Sir Joshua Hasan, and there would be no political objection to that proposal.
There should also be a regular deployment of mine counter-measures vessels. It is absurd that there is no minelaying or minesweeping capacity off Gibraltar. There have been mine counter-measures vessels and minelayers there in the past, and American equipment may be able to dominate from bases in Spain, but, since we shall remain in Gibraltar for as long as the people of Gibraltar wish, it is absurd not to have a minesweeping capacity or guns—since even the old Victorian guns are now out of commission—to dominate the straits.
The House is grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I know that he will have the courtesy to ask the leave of the House to speak again, and I have no doubt that he will get it. I hope that his reply will be as full and as helpful as his opening speech and that he will deal with the points that have been raised in the debate.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) made a helpful and interesting speech. I shall not follow all the points that he made, but I certainly associate myself with his kind remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I understand that my hon. Friend has been carried off by the Whips to vote in the Finance Bill Committee and, therefore, cannot be here to receive our tributes. We were all delighted with his speech and expect great things from him. His hard-fought victory at Grimsby threw a bright light on an otherwise dark day for Labour.
It is always enjoyable to listen to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who spoke in his usual breezy way and proved that the art of sabre rattling is not yet dead. In him it continues with renewed strength. However, the hon. Gentleman spoke with two voices—a well-known circumstance of Opposition Front Bench speakers. He expressed considerable criticism of this Government's defence cuts, but did not refer to the cuts made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). That is probably understandable, but it is odd that for two years we have heard Opposition Members insisting that there must be cuts in Government expenditure, that no one cheers those demands louder than the hon. Member for Stretford, and that now he demands greatly increased Government expenditure on defence. If there was some urgent need for it, one could understand, but the hon. Gentleman was the first to admit that the Royal Navy is the most powerful navy in the Western Alliance after the United States Navy. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we spend much more on defence in proportion to our gross domestic product than any other major country in the Western Alliance with the exception of the United States. It seems that he is talking with two voices in that rather characteristic way of the Opposition Front Bench, but with not as much logic as one would expect.
I take up the hon. Gentleman's point about welfare problems in the Royal Navy. It is fair to say that the Armed Forces' pay has slipped behind the


national average. I accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. However, my hon. Friend gave an impeccable answer when he said that the Navy has had to adhere to the national policy on wages. There is no escape from that. It is bad luck that the timing of these matters is such that members of the Armed Forces should be in a more difficult position than most others. They are suffering some hardship, and I hope that my hon. Friend, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will bear that in mind when the next round of discussions on pay for the Armed Forces takes place.
I have had the advantage of being able to talk to quite a few officers, petty officers and ratings, to a large extent by courtesy of the Navy Ministers. I have been to sea with HMS "Courageous" and HMS "Arrow". I was enormously impressed by the high standard of morale and efficiency, but there were certain criticisms. Some of the ratings were upset about wages. Another matter that seemed to worry them was pensions. It would be agreeable if pensions were standardised in some fair manner. The fairest way would be to ensure that pensions maintain a constant parity. In other words, a petty officer, officer or rating who retires should receive exactly the same pension in terms of parity, as that being received by someone who retired some years before. There should be parity so that pensioners are always in a relatively fair position.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the problems of separation. I do not see how much can be done to improve housing for Royal Navy personnel when they are separated, but much could be done by way of travel warrants. There is some discontent about warrants, especially on the part of ratings. They feel that they are treated unfavourably compared with civil servants, Ratings who in Great Britain are left in some port a long way from their homes, obviously through no fault of their own, should receive travel warrants much more frequently to enable them to go on leave to their homes. Quite often they do not go to their homes for short leaves because they cannot afford to do so. That must be unfair.

Mr. Trotter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be utterly wrong in

those circumstances to tax warrants, as has been suggested?

Mr. Cronin: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That would be a very mean thing to do. I hope that that never comes about.
Another matter that some hon. Members will take seriously is that some of the petty officers find that they are doing in Her Majesty's ships work that is not suitable for petty officers. As a result of more sophisticated equipment, there have been crew reductions. That is satisfactory in many ways, but petty officers quite often find themselves cleaning decks and doing similar work that is more the province of the ratings. They consider that people of their skilled trades should not be in that position. Some more thought should be given to the lower forms of husbandry in Her Majesty's ships when the question of replacing men with complicated equipment arises.
I am glad to see that surface-to-surface missiles are now being more generally deployed. I remember that about 15 years ago I and other hon. Members were arguing that such missiles should be developed and fitted to Her Majesty's ships. I recollect that there was little response in those days. I am glad that the present Government have made great improvements in this respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby talked about the Island class ships to be used for protecting oil rigs and for fishery protection. In spite of parliamentary praise of this class of ship, I have some doubts. We talk about policemen being on a beat, but I do not regard the Island class as being comparable even to policemen on a beat. If he is reasonably athletic, a policeman can run as fast as the thief, but that is not the case with the Island class because the ships are slower than most trawlers.

Mr. Duffy: I informed the House a few weeks ago that our own investigation of the speed comparability with the mass of trawlers that they might be expected to meet showed that the reverse was true. Only a small percentage of trawlers might present a problem for the Island class.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad to accept that correction. I take it that only a small


proportion of trawlers are faster than the Island class.
It would be an agreeable situation if ships designed solely for the purpose of police duties in fishery protection were to be faster than all trawlers. That is something one could reasonable hope for. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. I accept that probably the capacity of the Island class for overtaking trawlers is better than I thought.
Another matter that causes me some doubt is that the Island class does not have helicopters. Surely that is essential for any fishery protection duties. Most of all, it is essential for the protection of oil rigs. How can the ships liaise with, convey equipment to, or take sick people from, oil rigs in rough weather when they have no helicopters? This seems to be an inadequacy. I shall not labour that matter as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) knows much more about this subject.
It was heartening to see HMS "Invincible" being launched at the beginning of this month by Her Majesty. I do not want to introduce a sour note, but the choice of name was unfortunate. There have been six "Invincibles" in the Royal Navy and practically all of them have been lost with extremely heavy casualties. Sometimes they have lost almost everyone on board. Perhaps the choice of name was unfortunate, but we cannot worry too much about a lack of sensitivity on the part of the Navy Board. At least it is good to know that we have something that is close to being a carrier. I know that it is called an antisubmarine cruiser, but that is because it is the Navy's polite wish to conform to Government policy of a few years ago—namely, that no more carriers should be made. It shows a charming sense of tact to call something an anti-submarine cruiser which to everybody else looks exactly the same as a carrier. Indeed, it seems to have similar functions.
I am somewhat concerned that the present Harrier has a somewhat short range. I refer to the Harriers which will operate from the "Invincible" class. The Harrier also has rather a poor payload and insufficient speed and acceleration to cope with interceptor aircraft. I hope that rather more consideration will be

given to developing VTOL technology. It is rather a pity that we in Great Britain, who were the first to develop such aircraft, should find ourselves lagging behind the Americans, who have taken over and are developing the Harrier to rather better proportions.
It is common in these debates for us to talk about the Soviet navy and the increasing threat that it poses. The hon. Member for Stretford was quite right in drawing our attention to this. One gets the impression that, in total numbers of ships, the Soviet navy has reached something of a plateau. It is not increasing the number of ships, but the quality of its ships has improved in the most extraordinary way. It now has ships such as the "Kara" and "Kresta II" cruisers, and the Krivac destroyers, which are superior, I think, to almost any other ships in the Western Alliance. It has its Kiev helicopter carriers which could be easily adapted to VTOL work. They are also certainly as good as anything we can show in the Western Alliance.
What is also rather disturbing is the world-wide deployment of the Soviet navy, which now has bases in Cuba, North Africa, Guinea, Somalia and Aden. It is not at all clear why it should need this world-wide deployment or these bases. For instance, the Soviet navy always has a powerful squadron in the Indian Ocean. As far as I know, NATO has nothing in the Indian Ocean, yet about 200 tankers bringing oil to Europe are afloat in the Indian Ocean every day. It seems to me to be rather an uncomfortable situation.
The fact that the Soviet navy has roughly only the same numerical strength as the Western navies is not as reassuring as it sounds, because experience has proved that it is those who are defending at sea who have to have the odds in their favour. For an offensive to be effective on land the general doctrine is that it requires odds of three to one in favour of the offence, but at sea the position is completely reversed. It is always the defenders who have to have much greater numbers. One recollects that in 1939 the German navy was then one-quarter of the strength of the Royal Navy, and yet with about 50 diesel submarines and a handful of surface ships it was able to maintain the Royal Navy at full stretch, and very nearly succeeded in strangling the import of food and petrol into Britain.


It is very important that we should bear in mind that the Soviet navy, which now has no fewer than 400 submarines, of which a very large proportion is nuclear, is in a much stronger position that we are in ourselves.
There are certain measures which could be taken to improve the situation without costing money. Much could be done to improve NATO, and much money could be saved if there were much more standardisation. So far, we have standardisation almost entirely in terms of musketry. It should be possible to standardise parts of ships or other maritime equipment. I should have thought that there is a very good case for more rationalisation and specialisation in the NATO navies—in fact, the very opposite of what was suggested by several Opposition Members who were expressing disappointment that the Royal Navy had to a large extent withdrawn from the Mediterranean. Clearly, this is a case in which there should be specialisation, and the Mediterranean can be must more easily looked after from a maritime point of view by the countries which actually adjoin it, and, of course, by the United States, which has a powerful force there.
I believe it is desirable that the longstanding rule that NATO's operations cease to the south at the Tropic of Cancer should be changed. There must be a good case for the deployment of NATO ships south of the Tropic of Cancer, not only around the Cape but in the India Ocean. There should be much more in the way of exercises—

Mr. Newens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If there were to be any deployment of NATO ships in the Southern Hemisphere, to which my hon. Friend is referring, would this not involve military co-operation with certain racialist regimes in other parts of the world, and would not the result of that be likely to drive many black African countries in Southern Africa away from sympathy with the West?

Mr. Cronin: I agree with my hon. Friend that any form of military cooperation with South Africa would be most undesirable, but as I understand it, NATO maritime forces could certainly operate in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean without any help at all

from the Government of South Africa. In these days fleets or squadrons are often more or less self-supporting. They have their own tankers and services of every kind with them. It certainly would not be necessary for any kind of cooperation to take place with the South African Government. But it is helpful that my hon. Friend mentioned this point, because it ought to be made clear that quite a few of us would strongly object to any military co-operation with South Africa.
I should like next to draw the attention of the House to one particular aspect of naval strategy which does not get as much attention as it deserves. It is perfectly possible that we could have a conflict in the near future with the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact Powers, a conflict which would be confined entirely to the sea. This sort of thing has happened before, and there is a very distinct danger that it could happen again. In 1962, during the Cuba crisis, there was a conflict which was entirely confined to the sea. During the phoney war period of 1939–40 the conflict was again entirely maritime. More recently we have had an entirely maritime conflict in Icelandic waters.
A conflict of this nature has certain advantages to an aggressor. There are no frontiers to be crossed. There are no centres of population to be affected. Most of maritime conflict can take place without any shooting war. I should have thought that this form of purely maritime conflict would have great attractions to any aggressor who wanted to effect his policy without actually declaring war or giving rise to a situation which would cause a war. There are many ways in which a nation can have a war when confining it entirely to the sea. An aggressor nation could declare a certain zone of the sea to be a danger zone and say that merchant ships should not enter it. It could mine or close an important channel. It could insist on inspecting merchant ships or harassing them, or inspecting fishing ships and harass them. All these actions could be taken by a potential aggressor.
What would be the result if such aggression were found to be successful? If the Western Powers were unable to cope with limited maritime aggression they could do one of three things. They


could escalate the war so that it would become a land war, which would put them in an even weaker position. They could start some form of nuclear war, which would be an unthinkable situation. Lastly, they could surrender. It is absolutely clear that in the interests of peace it is very desirable that the NATO navy should think very clearly of the possibilities of a conflict with an aggressor limited entirely to the sea.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on the speech he made, in which he mentioned many people in the Royal Navy who should have been mentioned on other occasions in these debates. We owe the Royal Navy a great debt of gratitude. I think that my hon. Friend covered almost every category in the Royal Navy. I cannot say that I have had much acquaintance with chaplains, but I am certainly an admirer of the WRNS, which does a wonderful job. In the Royal Navy we have a marvellous Service altogether. It is a balanced, efficient force, and it contains personnel second to none, and deserves the thanks of this House.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Neville Trotter: We are debating the Royal Navy at a time when its personnel strength is the lowest since 1895, a time of world peace, very different from the turbulent days in which we now live. The Minister no doubt will say that ships have improved a great deal since 1895, and indeed they have improved considerably since 10 or 20 years ago. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the ships of the potential enemy have improved by at least as much.
The modern surface vessels of the Soviet Union are of a very high capability. One of their most fearsome aspects is that they appear to be aimed at initial attack. They do not appear to carry large stocks of weapons and appear to operate on the principle that they will attack first. That is a most worrying feature for the naval commanders of NATO, who do not know whether an attack will come in the middle of the night. It is difficult, despite the strength of the NATO navies, to deal with this situation.
The Soviet Union is a great land Power and has no natural reason for wanting a

large navy. It has no sea lines of communications, because it is a landlocked country. Therefore, its naval growth is all the more worrying to us.
In the "Statement on Defence Estimates 1975" the then Secretary of State set out the superiority of the Soviet northern fleet over our naval forces in the Eastern Atlantic. There was a 70 per cent. superiority in surface ships, 60 per cent. superiority in submarines, and 50 per cent. superiority in aircraft. In this year's White Paper the continued increase of the capability of the Soviet northern fleet is well illustrated.
At the same time as the Soviet submarine fleet has been increased by 10 per cent. in conventional terms and by 130 per cent. in nuclear terms, our own submarine fleet in the Royal Navy has declined by 30 per cent. Russian cruisers and destroyers have increased in terms of missile armament by 270 per cent. and in non-missile terms by 26 per cent., while our cruisers and destroyers in those respects have nearly halved. This is a worrying trend.
The 1975 review brought substantial cuts in the Royal Navy which affected destroyers, frigates, submarines, minesweepers and auxiliaries. Since the 1975 review there have been cuts of a further 70 per cent. For every £100 million saved in the 1975 review there has been a further saving or cut of £70 million. We must worry about the effect of these further significant cuts in face of the front-line strength and capability of the Soviet Navy. We must also worry increasingly about the effect of future cuts.
The Secretary of State was evasive when asked in the House to confirm whether the front-line forces committed to NATO would be affected. He said that he would do his best to maintain those forces. He has not said, however, that he "will" maintain them. We must suppose that there is danger of even further cuts to come.
On Monday a NATO meeting was held and afterwards a communiqué was issued referring to the need for an annual increase in the region of 3 per cent. in real terms in defence spending by NATO countries. That is in contrast to an increase of 5 per cent. in annual spending on defence by the Soviet Union. The communiqué went on to say that


economic circumstances in some countries will affect what can be achieved, while in others the present force contributions might justify a higher level of increase. I believe that we fall into the latter category, but the Government, as a way of getting out of their responsibilities, will probably say that we are in the former category. However, I hope that the Government will not shrug off their responsibilities on this occasion.
Some new ships have been ordered by the Government but I would remind the Minister that a former Defence Minister informed me last year that there would be no fewer than 11,000 jobs lost in shipbuilding as a result of the Government's defence review. It is unfortunate that, at a time when the shipbuilding industry is in danger of great contraction owing to lack of demand for merchant shipping, there should be a deliberate policy of cuts and a loss of jobs to warship builders involving 11,000 jobs.
I would remind the Minister that the answer to which I refer was given to me last April. I hope that he will be able to say what is the extent of further cuts as a result of the latest series of cuts in defence spending.
There is, it seems, thus not only to be a cut in numbers but also a proposal to run on older ships, with all that means in terms of lack of modern equipment and with the additional expense of maintenance costs. The efficiency of the Royal Navy depends on the quality of its men and women. Many tributes have rightly been paid to that staff, and I entirely concur. When one visits naval establishments, one sees great enthusiasm, professionalism and devotion to duty. If that attitude were prevalent in civil industry, this country would have no problems to face. We should also be able to afford the adequate defence capability we wish to see.
The quality of the men and women in the Services also should be backed by good equipment. It is essential to keep such equipment up to date. I am concerned about the use of the Mark VIII torpedo in our nuclear submarines. We have these expensive, sophisticated and effective vessels armed with torpedoes designed in 1934 and last produced in 1952. I know that there have been many

modifications, but one cannot modify a model T-Ford to make it into a modern car. That is the kind of comparison with which we are dealing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred to Sub-Harpoon. I wish to advise the House that earlier today I received a letter from McDonnell Douglas stating that the information given earlier was inaccurate. I gather that it appeared in an article in the Daily Telegraph. McDonnell Douglas refers to an article in Flight International of 16th April. That is supposed to be an accurate representation of the present situation, and I hope that I can refresh the Minister's memory by referring to that article.
It said that McDonnell Douglas had submitted its report on the pre-development phase for Sub-Harpoon to the Royal Navy on schedule in February. A report and recommendation from the Admiralty Underwater Weapons Establishment would be submitted in full in the late spring. McDonnell Douglas also said that the Sub-Harpoon would be used by the United States navy and European navies. Therefore, it would appear that the project is still in existence.
I turn to areas of operation. The Government have said that they intend to concentrate on NATO, since our maritime interests are still world-wide. Although we may have given up land bases, our trade continues throughout the world, especially on the Cape route. Some 40 ships per day pass the Cape on their way to this country. Therefore, it is a matter of grave concern that there is no NATO responsibility for the safety of those ships when at the same time in the Southern Atlantic and Indian Ocean we see ever-increasing Soviet naval and maritime-air operations.
Last year I had the opportunity to meet the American Pacific commanders. They stressed the importance of a British presence in the Indian Ocean. It takes a month for a ship to steam from San Diego on the West Coast of America to the East Coast of Africa—which is a very long time. It is important that there should be units in that area, because of possible conflagration.
I also took the opportunity to visit India and found a great reluctance there to accept the American navy's rôle in the


Indian Ocean. It was an illogical argument. I understand that it was based on the fact that when India and Pakistan were at war the Seventh Fleet entered the area and was not seen as being on India's side. That event soured relationships between the United States navy and India, and that is a great pity.
I am delighted to know that there are constant deployments of Royal Navy task forces in the Indian Ocean and I hope that they will continue. I suggest that the Minister talks with his ministerial colleagues with their responsibilities for the Royal Air Force and suggests a small attachment of Nimrods to be sent out with the task groups so that there may be surface, sub-surface and above-surface operations by those groups.
I turn now to NATO. At times we criticise NATO for the slow progress that it has made on standardisation. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said, I was privileged to take one or two colleagues to see a Dawn Patrol operation. We were impressed by what had been achieved and by the remarkable achievement of international co-operation among Italian, British and American ships working closely together. We were pleased to spend one night on "Hermes". Although the hospitality of the American Navy is good, coffee is not a stimulating drink after one has spent a day climbing ladders. One cannot compare the British Navy with the United States Navy in that way.
I do not wish to draw invidious comparisons between the British and the United States Navies, but the Royal Navy, in its quality and attitudes, is second to none and certainly up with the United States Navy in that respect.
We were not so far ahead with equipment. For instance, when we fit Ikara we have to take out the gun. We saw United States escorts that were better armed than ours. When we put in the anti-submarine equipment, we must take out the gun, and that leaves a castrated frigate.
I turn now to air defence. The range of American weapons remains substantially greater than that of the British. This also applies to surface-to-surface missiles. Exocet is a one-shot missile: it cannot be reloaded. But the Americans have fitted magazines that can keep on firing.

I know that it is argued that one should not have to fire more than once because one shot will sink the enemy, but that is an optimistic attitude.
I was disturbed to hear of the effects of the British withdrawal from the Mediterranean. The marines' disbandment was worrying because they were almost the only outside reinforcements available to the commanders in the south. Who is to take their place? There are no extra mine counter-measures vessels available.
The French have moved ships from Brest to Toulon, but that leaves part of the Atlantic without French strength. Although there are good relations between the French Navy and NATO, they are not in accord with the rest of NATO in the way in which our Navy is in accord.
On the southern flank there is concern about the instability from one end to the other of the Mediterranean and the ever-increasing Soviet activity. There is much Soviet activity in that area. One must remember that there were 56 Soviet vessels in that area in 1976.
Perhaps the most worrying feature of our withdrawal is that our equipment is not to be available. For frigates, nine vessels are to be scrapped and the Nimrods are to be no longer available for their maritime rôle. Commanders-in-chief may move their vessels from one command to the other. They do not have to have Government approval and it is possible for them to be moved to the Atlantic from the Mediterranean, but our frigates are to be scrapped and the Nimrods will not be available for that purpose.
The northern flank has been mentioned. It is essential that we have the ability to land forces quickly in a geographically hostile environment. The almost complete disbandment of the amphibious squadron was a grave effect of the defence review. I understand that the boats being used are run not by British Rail but by the Fred Olsen Line. I hope that there is an agreement with the enemy that hostilities shall not start until the holiday season is over!
Our capabilities are restricted as a result of the scrapping of "Albion", the laying up of "Intrepid" and the use of "Hermes" as an anti-submarine vessel. The message must go out that "Bulwark" should be brought back into commission.
General Whiteley, Commander-in-Chief, North, is the first in the corps of Royal Marines who has held such an appointment. That is a credit to the country, the corps and the general. The strength of the Royal Marines is so reduced that the Minister had to say that they were unable to mount guard at Buckingham Palace, as they did in 1935 on the occasion of the last Jubilee celebrations. Now they do not have enough men to mount guard at Buckingham Palace. That is a sad situation. Could arrangements be made for them to take their turn at a later stage? I do not expect an answer tonight.
Now I turn to the North Atlantic, where we have the vital sea lines of communication. We hear much about the efforts of civil aircraft to move the American army into Europe, but most equipment will have to come by sea and there will be a massive requirement for convoys. The cuts in numbers are therefore unfortunate.
We are apparently not to be told that "Ark Royal" is to be decommissioned, but it is generally known that it is to be decommissioned at the end of next year. It also seems to be known that there will be a gap of about one year before we have cover from the Harriers on the "Invincible".
It was right to order the Sea Harrier. It was designed to deal with the older threat from subsonic aircraft. But I have grave doubts about whether it would be able to deal with the new supersonic Backfire with long-range air-to-surface missiles. That is a dangerous threat, but the advantage of the Harrier force is that it maintains organic air power. The lessons learned by "Repulse" and "Prince of Wales" are still valid. There must be a next generation of special sonic VTOL aircraft and that development must involve the United States.
I asked earlier about airborne early warning. I know that the Nimrods will be used in that rôle, but all 11 Nimrods will be needed to defend the air space over Britain. It is essential to develop the AEW VTOL aircraft jointly with the Americans.
I shall not say much about our home waters, but I join in the concern expressed about the speed of our patrol boats. If

a faster vessel were available, it could move from one area to another with a speed that would give it a more effective patrol capability. At present it is necessary for a crew to go into harbour to attend a magistrates' court. While they are off station, the intelligence of the fishing industry is such that their absence is soon reported. It would be more economical in future to use the 748 coast guarders instead of Nimrods. That would leave four more Nimrods for their main rôle.
The threat of mines is one of the most worrying dangers. It is a problem that does not receive enough attention, either in this country or in NATO. The mine today is more dangerous than ever. Yet the number of mine counter-measure vessels is declining. In 1960 we had 152 minesweepers, but now we are down to 34.
A new class has been ordered. It would not be right to mention possible totals in the House, but I believe that we are unlikely to order anything like 34. I suggest that the waters around Britain cannot be maintained free from mines, which can be placed in peace-time and lay dormant for a long time before being activated at some future date. In this respect it is particularly unfortunate that the Royal Naval Reserve has been nearly halved in terms of its number of minesweepers. This has come down from 11 to six. That is one of the worst moves, and it is one of the greatest weaknesses at sea.
On the strategic deterrent, I merely say that I agree with my colleagues that we should definitely be looking into the possibility of the use of the cruise missile as a long-term replacement for Polaris. Cruise missiles are relatively cheap. They can be launched from ordinary submarines. They do not need specialist submarines, and they can be launched from nuclear attack submarines.
Finally, I should like to thank the Under-Secretary personally for his courtesy and the courtesy of his Department in keeping hon. Members informed of developments in the Navy. It may lead to criticism at times, but it leads to informed criticism, and that is better than ill-informed criticism.
I should like to say how very much I appreciate the arrangements that the Under-Secretary has made for me to meet


the Navy, and I pay my compliments to all those in his office who have worked to arrange my visits to various stations and ships. The quality of the men is second to none.
The former Secretary of State, speaking at Camberley in December 1975, referred to the balance between the economy and the international threat as being a matter of political judgment, reflecting, however imperfectly, the will of the people of this country. I am afraid that I must say that I think that the judgment of the present Government has been very imperfect. I believe that the people have the will to maintain adequate defences and that it must be the will of the Government to support them.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Bean: I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) with considerable interest. I was particularly interested in his references to NATO.
Last year I had the opportunity of touring several capitals in Europe. I spoke to European Members of Parliament about the question of the Royal Navy and NATO. They expressed to me the view that they were very worried about the decline in the size of the Royal Navy and the effect that that would have on Britain's contribution to NATO. However, I pointed out that we had extreme difficulty in bearing the cost of being the largest partner in NATO and that unless some of this cost was shared, we might have to think twice.
The possibility was then put to me by the Members of Parliament of some of the services at present borne by Britain alone being shared by our NATO allies. One point that came to mind was the Hydrographic Service. This survey service is operated by Britain, obviously for our own national interest but, nevertheless, for the whole interest of all seafaring nations. It would seem to be useful to ask our NATO allies if they would bear with us and help to support the cost of this venture.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has today praised the work done in the Royal Dockyards. He was correct when he said that the work of refitting modern ships is extremely complicated and that there is a need for all four Royal Dockyards. I was grateful, once again, to hear that the future of the four dockyards is

assured. I was interested, however, in the intervention of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) when he questioned whether there were perhaps too many Royal Dockyards in view of the present size of the Navy. I should be grateful if it could be made clear whether that is the view of the Conservative Opposition or just the hon. Gentle man's personal observation.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is not present this evening. I know that very often he expresses fears about the future of Chatham Dockyard, and I am sure that he would be pressing his colleagues on that point were he present.
The Minister mentioned the rôle being played by Chatham Dockyard in being the pilot yard in the new wages structure. One important factor of the new wages scheme is that we shall now be able accurately to monitor the amount of waiting time.
I have been associated with Chatham Dockyard for many years. It has been a constant source of complaint to me, by lower management and dockyard employees, that there is a great deal of waiting time in the dockyard due to the complexities of refitting ships. However, this has always been denied by management. The latest results survey carried out under the Chatham agreement shows that some trades have a waiting period of up to 20 per cent. during a working week. This has confirmed what has been said by the unions over the years.
The major problems is the fact that the work force feels that it is not part of the team and that decision-making really takes place above its head. One way of resolving this problem was the introduction of industrial democracy. Some two years ago initial talks were held in all four of the Royal Dockyards on the question of the introduction of industrial democracy. Unfortunately, however, little has happened since then. If now a fresh initiative were taken on the question of getting talks moving, possibly with the aid of the Industrial Society, I think that the Minister would find that there would be a willing response on the part of the work force.

Mr. Churchill: I should like to reply to the point that the hon. Gentleman was making about the dockyards. I was merely putting a question to his hon.


Friend the Under-Secretary for elucidation as to how it is that we need as many dockyards today to deal with a Navy of 107 ships as we needed in 1956 to deal with a Navy of 348 ships—more than three times the size.

Mr. Bean: If the hon. Gentleman examines the figures, I think that he will see that over the last 10 years the work force has been considerably reduced in all four dockyards. At present there is a shortage of skill in all four yards and the Navy dare not close one of the yards because it would then be at the mercy of a labour shortage. It is the skills that will keep all four yards going.
We in Chatham are the pioneering yard for nuclear refitting and refuelling. Initially, it was taking about 110 weeks to refit and refuel the nuclear submarines. I am pleased to say that, through experience, we have now got this period down to some 86 weeks. But this work is extremely difficult and every care must be taken to ensure the safety of not only the crew but, naturally, all the work people.
Recently there have been two accidents that have caused public concern. Only six weeks ago there was a derailment of a train carrying a spent nuclear core from Chatham Dockyard. It was derailed at Gillingham. I have learned only within the last hour or so that a similar derailment has occurred today. Unfortunately, the derailment today involves a nuclear core that was being taken into the yard—radioactive, presumably. I am sure that all necessary precautions are being taken. However, this matter is of such a serious nature that the Minister should take the opportunity—tonight, I hope—to assure the public that there is no danger as a result of this accident.

Mr. Duffy: I can, indeed, confirm that a freight train coming into Chatham Dockyard was derailed at 10.23 a.m. today just outside Gillingham station. It was en route from Windscale to Chatham Dockyard. No other rail or road traffic was involved, and no one was injured.
The freight train included a purpose-built transporter wagon for carrying radioactive materials. It was empty at the time of the derailment and there was no danger of any kind to the public or

British Rail employees. The train was put back on the rails shortly after 1 o'clock.

Mr. Bean: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. It probably explains why my train was two hours late reaching London today.
I have mentioned that the Whitley Committee feels frustrated because of the lack of communication in the dockyard. This lack is causing continued frustration, and men feel that they are not being given the opportunity to show what work they can do.
I have said that on nuclear refitting the production has been improved by 25 per cent. The same sort of production figures could be shown if the men were given the opportunity. Only recently all four Royal Dockyards were approached by the Navy Board to see whether they could take on another refitting—HMS "Herald", a survey class ship. There is joint consultation and the Whitley Committee takes a decision in full consultation with the production management. But when the Whitley Committee inquired whether this work could be done at Chatham, it was told "No". The decision was taken outside the meeting with the Whitley Committee, and that is the sort of situation that creates frustration.
I hope that it will be seen that this creates problems and I hope that the Minister will try to give a fresh impetus to the introduction of industrial democracy, which in the long run will increase production.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I rise with some trepidation to speak in a Navy debate or anything to do with defence. I admit immediately that my knowledge of this subject is extremely limited. I have listened with great respect and interest to the contributions by other hon. Members. My only qualifications are that for about four and a half years I served on the lower deck on a fleet sweeper called "The Wave", which makes one think about a musical comedy—at times it was something of a comedy—and my sister served in the WRNS.
As the Minister responsible for the Navy will know, until this debate was chosen he was going to spend today in my constituency. I was hoping to


convince him during that visit of the desirability of using the hovercraft in a minesweeping capacity.
Many hon. Members have already referred to the shortage of mine counter-measure vessels. I want to confine my few remarks to the rôle of the hovercraft in that respect. I, and many of my constituents who work for British Hovercraft Corporation—the biggest hovercraft company in the world, employing a work force of over 2,000—are concerned about the rumours emanating from Navy circles about the possible abandonment of the hovercraft as a mine counter-measure vessel.
Hon. Members better versed in Navy affairs than I am will be well aware that since 17th January 1975 the Royal Navy has had sole charge of the hovercraft trials unit based at Lee-on-Solent. As Lord Beswick said in another place:
Any successful outcome of that could open up an important market for the industry ".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1st May 1975; Vol. 360, c. 82–3.]
That is what the British Hovercraft Corporation management and my constituents are hoping will prove to be the case.
Since that date, the hovercraft trials unit has evaluated the advantages of the BH7 and, more recently, the N3 and N4 hovercraft, all of which are manufactured by the BHC at East Cowes. The N4 is exactly the same as the largest hovercraft now in service which crosses the Channel. It is the same as the model that we are now cutting in half and stretching, and in a year's time one of these vessels will be able to carry more than 80 cars across the Channel. The larger it becomes, the more viable it is with traditional ships, and the smoother will be the crossing. Such hovercraft are able to go out in virtually any sort of weather.
In Written Answers that I have received I have been told that a decision will be made before the end of this year about whether the Royal Navy will proceed to place a firm order for one or more hovercraft for use in a minesweeping capacity. My constituents and the company feel that the sooner this is known the better because substantial redundancies will follow if the Royal Navy does not proceed.
One of the rumours that has caused alarm was a report in The Guardian on 4th April stating, that the Navy might cancel hovercraft plans. I know that this has been contradicted by the Minister of State and by the Minister responsible for the Navy since then, but certain senior officers of the Royal Navy are believed to be more favourably disposed towards traditional ships whereas there is another body of naval opinion that is very much in favour of moving into the area of hovercraft in minesweeping rôles as well as in one or two others.
I should like to outline some of the great advantages which I think the hovercraft has over traditional ships in this rôle. They may be summarised as follows. There is the speed of getting to the area to be swept. During my time on the fleet sweeper we were supposed to sweep the entrance into Hong Kong but, fortunately for us, we broke down at the last moment and someone else did it. Our top speed when operative was about 15 knots. The great advantage with the hovercraft is that it can travel at up to 70 knots.
Secondly, there is the relative invulnerability of hovercraft in minesweeping rôles. The force of an explosion from a mine underneath a hovercraft is largely absorbed in the air cushion. The Minister will have confirmed to him if he does not already know that recent attempts to blow up a hovercraft proved abortive. Although an explosion took place underneath the hovercraft, it was able to return to port.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The explosion annoyed a number of my constituents, but apart from that it caused no great alarm.

Mr. Ross: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but it was in a very good cause.
Another good point about the hovercraft is that the magnetic signature is extremely low. It is well known to naval people that when ships are constructed they have to be treated so that they do not attract magnetic mines. The materials that go into the building of a hovercraft do not have that effect.
Another point that ought to be of interest to the Government is that the


cost of a hovercraft is half that of a conventional sweeper. That is very important. One can visualise the N4 type in a much bigger rôle because it can be used to carry all the gear necessary for a mine-sweeping exercise. I seems to remember that fleet sweepers when going on an "Oropesa" sweep go out abreast of one another. One can therefore see the sense of having the larger type of hovercraft that carries all the materials that one needs.
The larger hovercraft can also be used in a logistic support rôle. Hovercraft can be refuelled at sea, beached in an emergency and require only a small crew. There are other tasks for which hovercraft can be used. They can tow traditional inshore sweepers which break down from the source of activity. They can also be used in a minehunting rôle as well as in bomb disposal, as was the case about two years ago around the Wash area where last war bombs were still lying close to the shore.
Hovercraft have a proven reliability. This is one feature to which I hope the Secretary of State will pay particular attention if he is able to visit the BHC. He will see there the SRN4 which has been brought in to be stretched. It was first launched in 1967 or 1968 and it has hardly been back since. There has been almost no corrosion in that hovercraft, but it has been used the whole time for Channel crossings. I can witness their proven reliability from my many trips on them when crossing between the Isle of Wight and the mainland.
The Royal Navy has spent many months carrying out trials and evaluations of the larger-engined hovercaft for minesweeping. One leading admiral has said that there is considerable potential in them for this rôle. Therefore, it would be tragic if we were to throw away all the work that has been done, particularly since other countries are proceeding apace to develop the hovercraft.
Russian technicians are in the Isle of Wight picking up knowledge about hovercraft skirts, a subject in which we lead the world. The Americans also intend to build much bigger hovercaft. The French have just built one, although, unfortunately, someone set fire to it, but there is another on its way.
These other countries will not give up. If we are not careful, we shall witness here another example of how Britain, having led the field, allows others to pick up its knowledge so that in the end we are the losers. An order from the Navy for hovercraft is of very great importance to my constituents and to a large number of employees at the BHC.
That, however, is not my excuse for intervening today. We are not asking for help for a craft that is unlikely to give good service. I am completely convinced that the Navy should have the benefit of hovercraft for minesweeping. We have already been told that the Navy is short of vessels for this work. To throw away work that has already been done would be folly indeed.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy:: I am not competent to comment on the merits of hovercraft, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to visit the Isle of Wight and see while he is there whether the components of the hovercraft are made of special steel produced in South Yorkshire.
I want in particular to comment on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Tribute has been paid to him already, but I wish to offer my own commendations since I thought his reference to Tony Crosland was particularly appropriate. The House is aware of the great respect that Grimsby had for Tony Crosland, and having listened to the comments of my hon. Friend today I can only say that I believe that the respect and affection that Grimsby had for Tony Crosland will be commanded by his successor.
I turn now to questions of defence policy. A great deal of concern has been expressed this week about proposals for future defence spending in NATO. It is right that this should have attracted a great deal of attention and that there should be questions and critical examination.
But if questions are necessary, so also are logical conclusions. If we are to look at NATO's policy, we must also look at the increased Soviet and Warsaw Pact spending. That must be carefully monitored and the results must be reflected in this country's defence policy. We have to


recognise that all the demands made today—demands which would be triplicated through the Army and the Air Force—could not be met by one comparatively small part of the Western Alliance.
We must determine our priorities. They must reflect the large increase in defence spending by Russia and the other Warsaw Pact Powers, but they must reflect also the needs we face and the areas in which we can make a particular contribution. For that reason, I am not entirely sure that we should go along with the often fashionable view of concentrating the public mind upon the growing Russian submarine strength. It is important, but it may be that the greatest threat to Europe and ourselves lies in the rapid increase in land forces on the European mainland rather than from Soviet imperialism.
I accept that Soviet imperialism is entirely distasteful, but within it lie the seeds of its own failure. If the Soviet Union persists in going around Africa offering arms and military aid but not technical aid or the other forms of assistance that Africa most needs, sooner or later they will be spurned and sooner or later Africa will treat that policy with the contempt that it deserves. For that reason we are right to commit ourselves primarily to NATO.
My right hon. Friend's policy of earmarking all major Royal Navy units to NATO assignments in the case of conflict is right. In this unpleasant and divided world, NATO must be the pillar upon which British security rests. I do not think that that justifies either excessive timidity by people who sometimes comment on defence or the demands for extravagant defence expenditure so often made by the Conservatives. If we were to spend the sort of money that they demand, it would so constrain social programmes in this country that a great deal of political health and liberty would be a much greater risk.
If we were to restrain social progress in order to feed delusions of past grandeur, or the sometimes excessive fears of that metallic maiden who saw nothing wrong with the cuts of 1973, we would be entering a panic condition which is not justified. There has to be prudence, because excessive defence expenditure could in the end power the cause of

neutrality, and I would not support that. I see neutrality offering no advantage to Britain. It would certainly provide nothing of a shelter from nuclear fallout. Our present membership of the Alliance contributes to our security and at least allows us useful influence in the Alliance. Neutrality would save us little and would in any case involve no less risk of catastrophe from conflict. Nor would the prospect of liberty be served.
It is because I am interested in liberty that I decided to speak today. I have a case which causes me great concern and about which I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sorry if I cause him any difficulty or embarrassment, but he is aware that I believe that the individual's position in society is one which must ever command the attention of this House. That is why I have decided to mention the case in the House in the hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will be able to offer some help and reassurance.
Anthony John Quinn is a 16-year-old boy who lives in Thurcroft in my constituency. For a long time Anthony has wished to join the Royal Navy. He applied to join on 21st October last year as a junior marine engineering mechanic. He received a firm letter of acceptance on 20th January 1977. This gave him a great deal of delight and gave considerable pleasure to his parents and his teachers. I know that his school was pleased because I have consulted his headmaster at Wells Comprehensive School, and I have seen documents and reports about the boy.
Having seen those and having met the boy, I was absolutely sure that here was someone who would and could have done very well in the Royal Navy. He was entirely suited for the career. He is bright and fit and he will do well in his external examinations this year. He plays rugby for his school and cricket for his house, and he is a prominent young athlete in my district. He is a good all-rounder.
However, on 8th February this year he received a letter telling him that the Royal Navy could not accept him but making no reference to the objection. The father came to my surgery and I spent a great deal of time on this case looking into it in detail. It seems that the only reason for the Ministry of Defence changing its mind could be that Mr. Quinn, the father,


had been, as he frankly admitted to me, a member of the Communist Party.
To the best of my knowledge he was never active in that party, nor had he been much interested in politics. I do not think that he is an expert in political theory, nor do I discern any sign of revolutionary commitment. My hon. Friend the Minister will know well that I am not and never have been a Communist. I strongly criticise the Communist Party, because I believe that it could lead to as great an evil as the evils which democratic Socialism was founded to remove. I believe that a Communist régime would be likely to diminish the individual within the State and to interfere with that freedom which we wish to enhance. Because of that belief, I have spelt out my support for our membership of the NATO Alliance. However, if a Briton wishes to be a Communist he has the right to be a Communist. There are a few of them, not very many, in my constituency. I do not think that they care very much for me. I do not care very much for their belief either, but they have a right to that belief and I have a duty to defend that right. I accept that it is my duty to challenge the Executive in this case because I do not believe that there is any threat to the security of this country by allowing Anthony Quinn to join the Royal Navy.
The Ministry of Defence has no right to make an automatic assumption that my constituent, or, what is worse, his 16-year-old son, offers any threat to our security. If we have to make such an assumption automatically, we are either in a very parlous state and individual rights need to be more firmly upheld or security within central Government has been allowed excessive power.
In my view, Mr. Quinn offers no threat. He is a steel erector, secretary of a trade union branch and regarded as a moderate because he does not seek strikes but believes in going through agreed procedures. There are plenty of people in trade unions who are not members of the Communist Party who may not be regarded as such calm personalities. But his hobby is not intellectual or political. I believe he hardly ever attended Communist Party meetings between 1971 and 1974, the period during which I understand he was a member.
Now, however, Mr. Quinn is very angry, and my hon. Friend will know why because he is, like me, a South Yorkshire man. My hon. Friend knows what our people are like. He knows the South Yorkshire character and aspirations and he knows of the approach of those employed in the heavy industries which dominate our area. He will not be astonished when I say that such men, though they may support the Communist Party, are never very likely to provide the stuff of treason; and if they really settle to examine politics properly they will probably find that their beliefs are a considerable distance from those of the party they join.
I know them, like Mr. Quinn, to be decent men. He is a very good father. I have said he was angry. Because of his anger he has taken an action which I regard as typical of the man but not helpful to this case. He rejoined the Communist Party last month and in that respect the Ministry has achieved a fairly good effect in promoting the strength of that organisation. While my hon. Friend and I might disagree about Mr. Quinn's political attitude, I believe my hon. Friend would recognise that he is a very respectable person. He would recognise that the kind of community in which Mr. Quinn resides, Thurcroft, is a community not free from deprivation but one which has no history of sedition or revolution. In fact, the very nature of the community of Thurcroft is more redolent of service than treason. I know the people there, and this family stands in very reasonable regard in the community.
I certainly believe that an injustice has been done in this case. I remind my hon. Friend that an injustice was once said to have been done to a boy by the Royal Navy. This was the background to Terence Rattigan's play "The Winslow Boy". That case was based on a missing 1s. 6d. In my view, more importantly, this case is based on missing liberty, and I hope that my hon. Friend will examine this matter very carefully today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before calling the next hon. Member, I should like to remind the House that time is moving on. There are five hon. Members desiring to take part in the debate. May I appeal to hon.


Members to limit their speeches to 10 minutes, if possible?

8.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: In view of your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not follow the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) into the ideological quicksands within his constituency. I wish to start by saying that the Royal Navy has usually been very fortunate in its Navy Ministers, and this includes the present one. I intend to say some fairly harsh things, but I wish to be seen as attacking the measures and not the man.
Like many others who have spoken, I should like to pay tribute to a previous Navy Minister, Sir Peter Kirk, whose memorial service took place today. Amongst many other things, he arranged for HMS "Belfast" to be given to the trustees by the Government, and this transfer took place in his time. The House will know that she was put on permanent exhibition at moorings in the Port of London. Sir Peter's initiative has been triumphantly vindicated as the scheme is now an assured success. I am happy to inform the House that 2 million visitors will have visited the ship by next month, many of them from abroad, a huge proportion of them schoolchildren and young people. Topically, the ship will be a splendid viewpoint or grandstand for all who wish to see Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee progress up the River Thames at midday on Thursday 9th June.
On this subject, in this Jubilee year, may I say that a magnificent collection of pictures of World War Two at sea, painted by John Hamilton, a very expert artist who lives in the Scilly Isles, is to be opened by the Lord Mayor of London in Guildhall on 25th May. There is currently an appeal to preserve these pictures for the nation, and if this proves successful, as I hope it will, a permanent home will be found for the exhibition in HMS "Belfast".
It is a pity that the Minister had to leave at this very moment, but my words will be recorded in Hansard. I hope he will do everything he can to expedite the scheme for HMS "Cavalier" which is to some extent hanging fire. She is the last of the traditional design of des

troyers, which played such a large part in British naval history.
I turn now to two subjects of more immediate concern to the Royal Navy—pay and conditions, and the size and shape of the Fleet. I spent last weekend at sea in the Mediterranean with the United States Sixth Fleet on the NATO exercise Dawn Patrol which is currently in progress, during which I visited HMS "Hermes". In discussions with officers and ship's company their opinions of the pay review, I detected neither bitterness nor any damage to morale, although this is sometimes alleged by people who have discussed the subject, because the morale was excellent and the ship's company were "getting on with their job" as soldiers and sailors so splendidly do.
However, I detected very great disappointment about the result of the pay review because the so-called pay increases amounted to little or nothing at all. In some individual cases there was actually a loss. In a debate like this it is not easy to make statistical comparisons about pay, but there are a few salient points I should like to make to the Minister. The first is that successive Review Board awards, under the limitations imposed by Government restraint policies, have meant that forces' pay has been falling progressively still further behind as one review has taken over from another. It is not simply the effect of one review but a cumulative and progressive deterioration through falling further and further behind.
A second point is that comparisons with the industrial sector amount to nothing because the Services cannot claim overtime. They do not want to do so, and I am certainly not advocating that, as I hope the Minister will understand. If, however, Government Ministers could see the number of hours spent on duty, for example in HMS "Hermes" and other Royal Navy ships working round the clock in these very energetic NATO exercises, they would understand that Service pay is grossly inadequate. I had a go at the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in a debate not long ago, but I am afraid that the point has not yet been taken.
Thirdly, any increases which have been granted have been whittled away to nothing by increased charges for food


and accommodation. Ministers claim that comparison with civilian life must be taken into account. But what a comparison that is, particularly for the Royal Navy, when we think of the crowded mess decks in which men are accommodated. The food is much better than it was. However, I do not think it is fair that charges for food and accommodation should be increased in view of what these represent when it comes to the nitty-gritty of how the men live. That is particularly applicable to the Royal Navy.
The point was made about men going ashore in foreign ports. When men are living in cramped conditions in a modern warship—they have very little privacy, and they have restricted accommodation—they need a "run ashore" in foreign ports for health and sanity. We cannot expect men not to go ashore, and, of course, prices in foreign ports are high owing to the value of the pound.
The fourth point, which has been made by others of my hon. Friends, relates to the Rent Act. I should like to add only one comment about that. One must have been in the Services—some Ministers have—to understand the effects of the turbulence of Service life. It is "come and go" all the time.
When I visited "Hermes", the point was made to me that the issue of travel warrants was not generous enough.
I should like to quote from the final paragraph of the report of the Review Board:
We attach particular importance to the need for a measure of flexibility in the period after 1st August 1977 in a form that is directly relevant to the armed forces pay system".
I want to press for a specific undertaking that a new pay award—whatever the Government think is right—will be granted from 1st August 1977, which is the specific recommendation of the Review Board. Only in that way can we break the chain of successively falling further and further behind. It is not sufficient for the Government to duck round that by saying that the review lasts for a year. The Government do not appear to have noticed the specific recommendation that new measures are required from 1st August next. I ask the Minister to take heed of that point and to reply to it in his winding-up speech.
The Navy Minister sounded extremely unhappy about Service pay. I wrote down what he said:
There has been a loss of pay comparability.
He rightly referred to the problems of differentials. This matter must be dealt with. The ball is in the Minister's court.
The second major point with which I want to deal relates to the size and shape of the Fleet. This subject is at least as important to the officers and men of the Royal Navy as their pay. They are dedicated and professional men. I am sure that they would like to echo Churchill's words during the war:
Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.
I referred to the American Sixth Fleet. Comparison with the United States Navy is odious. We were accommodated on the "John F. Kennedy". We landed on the deck in a large twin-engined aircraft. The flight deck covers 4½ acres. Nearly 100 aircraft and 5,500 men embark on that ship.
The American Sixth Fleet is very impressive. But both Admiral Train, who commands the Sixth Fleet, and Admiral Schultz, commanding our task force, spoke highly of the Royal Navy's contribution—both ships and men—and in particular the Sea King helicopters embarked in "Hermes ".That underlines the fundamental issue about the importance of anti-submarine warfare in Royal Navy thinking, for reasons which will be clearly understood and into which I need not go tonight.
There were Russian shadowers. There was an almost constant attendant destroyer following the "John F. Kennedy". Seeing this Russian ship refuelling when we turned into the wind to take on an aircraft brought the problem in the Mediterranean into clear perspective. There is a tense situation on the south flank of NATO. As has been pointed out, on average there are about 50 Soviet ships in the Mediterranean all the time. Half of them are combat ships; the others are support ships. There are nine submarines and innumerable intelligence gatherers. They have various anchorages which they regularly use. There were 95 Soviet warships in the Mediterranean during the Arab-Israeli


war. We are told that there are now 75 Backfire bombers based in the Crimea.
The American commander-in-chief emphasised the importance to NATO of sovereign bases in Cyprus. He also strongly emphasised the value to him of the Nimrods which have until now been deployed in the Mediterranean. As the Minister knows, the Nimrod can fly the length of the Mediterranean in a few hours and every rowing boat which moves can be detected by it.
We need a continuous Royal Navy presence in the Mediterranean in support of our NATO partners just as much now as has always been the case in the past I am not suggesting that it should be an individual national presence.
On the wider aspect of the size and shape of the Fleet, I agree with what has been said interestingly by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the importance of the Cape route and the Indian Ocean. I want deployment there not to fight wars but to prevent them.
Angola is very much the shape of things to come in Africa. The hon. Member for Rother Valley should consider how the independent African nations will get the Soviets off their backs once they get them in. How will the people of Angola get rid of the Cubans?
The raison d'etre for the Royal Navy is the protection of our merchant ships wherever they may ply their trade—not only in the Western Approaches. We must have the ability to do that, before war is declared, in order to keep the peace. We cannot pretend to be able to do so with the Royal Navy at its present size. We frequently hear from Labour Members that we cannot do it alone. Of course not. I am not advocating that we could dream of doing it alone. But, if we are to rely on our allies, we must make an adequate contribution to the Alliance, and that contribution must be seen to be adequate.
President Carter was in London a week ago urging a 3 per cent. annual increase in defence budgets. That means that the Government and the Prime Minister, who was chatting up and slapping that man on the back and praising what he was saying, must pay heed to what he said. That means cancelling further cuts in

defence expenditure and instead increasing it by 3 per cent.
This will be little enough to rectify the pay situation and provide for the leeway to be made up on equipment, but it must be done by the Government if they are to stand up honourably among our allies. The Government must pay heed to what President Carter has said, and put his words into action.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: In accordance with the appeal of your predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak briefly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Usually I find that when such an appeal is made, the speeches last longer.

Mr. Johnson: Well, I shall speak briefly on one aspect—that of fisheries protection and the vital part that the Queen's Navy must play in policing our own waters to keep out vessels, EEC or otherwise, that are not entitled to be there.
I enjoyed the speech of my new Humberside colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He spoke with wit, and he spoke modestly and pleasantly. I enjoyed his contribution immensely, and the best compliment I can pay him on his initial performance—which is an ordeal for most of us—is that his predecessor would have appreciated and approved every word he spoke.
Napoleon once said that the British were a nation of small shopkeepers. But long before that and still today we are a nation of small fishermen. Later in our history we also became distant-water fishermen—I am in a deep-sea port—but Iceland and other places will not see us in future. We must accept the situation without too much gloom. We are forced back into the North Sea and the Atlantic to the west of our islands.
Without speaking in a spirit of vainglory these waters about our shores are our heritage and it is our duty to hand them down to the next generation. We cannot allow our waters to become pawns in bargaining with our EEC partners or with anyone else. The Minister of Agriculture has indicated where he stands on this and he has the support of the whole


House behind him. He needs his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, and particularly the Navy Minister, to enforce the limits and to back him up.
I believe, as I am sure the House does too, that we need a much wider exclusive economic zone and we must not allow the inner waters in that zone to be fished by those people or nations who have destroyed their stocks on the Continental side. We cannot allow uncontrolled fishing in and about our shores.
Mr. Austen Laing, the Director-General of the British Trawlers' Federation, recently gave a lecture at the Royal Society of Arts and he used the term "looting". Looting and anarchy are not allowed on land, so why should they be allowed at sea? There was a time when there was slaving at sea, and our Fleet eliminated that. In doing so it earned the respect and affection of the civilised world. It is our duty to expect and demand a similar job by the Royal Navy in seeing that those who should not fish in our waters do not do so.
In the past the Navy has enforced a 12-mile limit. In future we shall have a 200-mile limit and this will enlarge the waters within the limit to 300,000 square miles. This will be a heavy burden on the Fleet. The fishing industry has faced many challenges in the past but this is the biggest. It is also a big challenge to the Government and the Ministry of Defence, whose job it is to keep the waters clear.
No fisherman in my constituency, or any other constituency, believes in catch quotas. There is too much cheating by the Continentals. Even if catch quotas are fixed by the EEC, it is extremely likely that we shall still have a fish famine towards the end of the year.
The word now is "conservation"—we must husband our stocks. This can be best done by the territorial State and it can only be done successfully if alien vessels are generally kept out. We must expect tougher penalties for all poachers who are caught by our Fleet fishing illegally within our coastal waters.
Our attitude on this is quite contrary to that north of the Tweed. In Scotland it does not pay to poach. In the Shetlands the authorities demand fines of £10,000, but if we haul in a French poacher off Hull, he will get a £250 fine.

We must not only catch but fine those who are fishing in our waters.
There are two or three questions I wish to put to the Minister. There has been criticism in the past and from hon. Members tonight about the speed of certain vessels. I have known skippers in Hull who have sniffed contemptuously and said that the island class vessels can do only 16 knots. The vessels are purpose-built. Ours is the only Government in the West or in the EEC to have purpose-built boats. Can these boats do 16 knots or can they do more? I must also point out that it was only the Labour Government who thought of having purpose-built vessels to look after our fishermen.
I understand that we are building another type of vessel that can go faster, at about 25 knots. This is the Azteca class, which we export to Mexico. These boats are 40 ft. wide and can therefore carry a helicopter. So far we have built only one vessel, the "Jersey". I understand that another four vessels of this class are to be built. I would like an assurance from my hon. Friend that in each of the four divisions within this 300,000 square mile area there will always be a purpose-built boat of this calibre patrolling.
Can the Minister give us half-yearly reports about progress in this area? How are the men and officers coping in these particularly dangerous waters? From the tales that we hear from the oil industry we can obtain some idea of the terrible conditions which our fishermen have to endure. What vessels have been caught so far? Are there any disputed waters? If there are, we shall find the Soviet Union sending vessels into any areas of water that are in dispute, perhaps round about Rockall.
Things have gone quiet lately. Are we having success in keeping foreign vessels out of our waters? The Irish slapped down the Russians with a fine of, I think, £90,000 on a large factory vessel that was caught fishing somewhere near St. George's Channel. We must not lag behind. Ireland is a small country and will attract sympathy, as Iceland did against us, but public opinion in the United Kingdom always lags behind opinion and knowledge in the House.
Not only must we do the job but the job must be seen to be done. We


must not allow too large a gap between what the public think and what we think. We must educate public opinion on what the Government are doing. I know that the Government are doing a good job and I hope that it will be even better. I hope that we shall be told exactly what the Government are doing.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: I shall not attempt to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), except to say that I suspect that everything he said would be echoed by the fishermen in my county, which is the rival of his county.
The hon. Gentleman referred to purpose-built vessels. I was in Mexico City a month ago and had a report on them. If the Mexicans can be happy with them, I cannot see why Yorkshiremen and Lancastrians cannot also.
I should now like to turn to what I regard as the main purpose of the debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy is a pleasant and agreeable man and he made a pleasant and agreeable speech telling us about the Royal Navy viewed from deck level. I cannot say less than that of his speech, but I certainly cannot say more. There was a deal of skating over the surface that has happened in all the defence debates that we have had in this series, covering the three Services, and in the main defence debate.
First, I want to quote a statement that was made by the Prime Minister after the recent NATO conference and his visit to our forces in Europe. He said:
Nevertheless we must be vigilant, for if we should find that a build-up on the side of the Warsaw Pact is likely to disturb the balance we should have to draw the appropriate conclusions ".
That was a clever sentence and slightly above the standard of the bluff honesty that the right hon. Gentleman normally affects. However, I take that as a statement of policy and it should therefore be examined in relation to the facts about defence today and the special circumstances of the Royal Navy.
Last week I was, by courtesy of the Ministry of Defence, to which I give thanks, present with a number of my colleagues, at the SHAPE conference out

side Brussels. It was the first time that politicians had been allowed to be present. Hon. Members from both sides of the House participated in what had hitherto been regarded as purely the sphere of senior officers and diplomats. I was grateful for that opportunity, but to come from the atmosphere there to the atmosphere in this House when defence matters are discussed is, quite honestly, to move in two different worlds.
There were gathered at the conference all the experts of the NATO Alliance. The Supreme Commander and Dr. Luns, the widely respected Secretary-General, were the most eminent people present. The message of that conference was loud and clear, and everybody here knows it already. It was a precise definition and description of the increased defence capabilities of the Warsaw Pact nations on land, at sea and in the air.
It is possible to say that capability is different from intentions. But intentions are perhaps more difficult to define and more problematical. However, capability may well affect intentions, and, as far as I know, it is the best evidence that one can find of intentions.
I should now like to turn more particularly to naval matters. As far back as 1956 Admiral Gorchkov, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, decided that Russia should be a strong naval Power spreading into the oceans of the world aided—and a number of hon. Members have made this point—by an enormously increased merchant marine that would be well above Russian's economic needs. He decided that the merchant marine should be an auxiliary of the fleet and its officers part of the Soviet navy. It would provide the Soviet navy with extra eyes and ears and, in time of war, arms. It would act as a fleet auxiliary.
Examining why the Russians decided that is a waste of time. It has already been said in this debate that Russia is a land-locked nation and that it has no need of a fleet or merchant marine as we do because we are an island. That may be so, but the history of Russia shows that there have been a number of attempts to make her into a naval Power. Stalin was not much interested. Czar Nicolas II was, but that attempt came to failure—and hon. Members who wish to know


more about that should read my book on the subject.
So it is rather a waste of time to ask oneself why the Russians decided that, because they plainly have so decided. That was demonstrated last year when the whole Russian navy and maritime marine carried out Operation Okean. The word means "ocean" and the operation meant precisely that it was a demonstration of Russian command and superiority in the oceans of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has already quoted Admiral Gorchkov's reasons. The admiral said:
The goal of the Soviet sea power is to effectively utilise the world oceans in the interests of building Communism
He has said it all too plainly.
The motive is exposed. It is superiority over the enemy by building up the maritime base system that the Russian navy lacks—either with friendly nations or with naions that can be overawed. I respect the judgment and analysis of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), but this was a point that he omitted.
It may be true that the Russians have not made many friends, but there are a number of nations dotted around the oceans of the world that can be overawed by a naval presence and I have no doubt that this is part of the Russians' strategy. Two years ago, Admiral Stansfield Turner of the United States Navy told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and myself in Naples that the Russian Navy was a "one-shot navy". The Russians are now trying to get away from that image. It is a sort of new colonialism.
We know how the Warsaw Pact nations have increased their military and naval potential over the years. The facts have been spelled out in successive defence White Papers. We console ourselves with the belief that a superiority of eight to one on land is necessary to take Western Europe. That may be so, but I suspect that it is a dangerous consolation.
Even if we accept that for the sake of argument, it is obvious that Moscow is prepared to consider not only the land and military factor but the naval factor. Moscow may be content with the balance on the central front in Europe. I think

that we sometimes over-concentrate on that. Ministers take great consolation from the fact that all our forces are committed to the NATO central front, but it is a curious assumption that our enemy will choose to make war where we should most like. Meanwhile, the Russians are increasing their power outside that area.
Our contribution to the NATO navy is 100 ships, ranging from a single elderly aircraft carrier down to some very small vessels. It may still be the largest navy of any Western European nation—and, as we are an island, it damn well should be—and although I have no doubts about its quality and the morale of the men, size is also important. Quality and quantity are both important.
Our navy is confined to the Channel and the Western Approaches, and I know that this is a source of regret to our allies in NATO. It is reasonable to assume that Moscow may view the situation on land as a stalemate and that the new expansion will come at sea.
I know the time is limited, but I hope that I shall keep within my 10 minutes if I go back to where I started and to what the Prime Minister said after the most recent NATO conference and in the light of the commitment by all the NATO nations to a 3 per cent. increase in defence expenditure in real terms in the coming years. I understand from the Press that our Secretary of State was somewhat sceptical about that. We understand that he is being pushed by his party in exactly the opposite direction.
In the light of all that, I return to the Prime Minister's statement. Let us consider it sentence by sentence. He said:
Nevertheless, we must be vigilant "—
I hope we are. He continued:
for if we should find that a build-up on the side of the Warsaw Pact is likely "—
We have. There is one. It is not likely; it is not a possibility; it has happened. The right hon. Gentleman said:
for if we should find that a build-up on the side of the Warsaw Pact is likely to disturb the balance…".
It must disturb the balance. What shall we do in that event? How shall we meet the threat? How shall we scare or worry all those Russian admirals? What shall we do? Lo and behold, with Nelsonic


briefness from the Prime Minister we are told that
We should have to draw the appropriate conclusions.
No doubt that terrifies the Russian admirals. If we have drawn the appropriate conclusions from the build-up that has taken place, I have only one question of the Minister—what are they?

8.52 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the shortness of the time available, I shall be as brief as possible. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) has properly posed certain questions. Equally predictably, he has provided no answers.
First, I think that the House should seriously consider whether we can devise a more effective way of conducting these investigations into defence matters. At no one part of the debate have more than 20 hon. Members been present, and in the main they have wanted to speak. If those 20 hon. Members had been locked in a room and had been able to cross-examine Ministers instead of having to make formal speeches in the Chamber, they would have enabled other hon. Members to get on with other matters and would probably have found it a more effective way of bringing Ministers to account for what they are doing or not doing.
My second general comment is that no nation State can possibly provide for its own defence. Nor can an alliance of States, whether the NATO Powers or the Warsaw Pact Powers, provide for all possible contingencies in defence matters. They have to make choices and assumptions. They have to try to monitor what the other side is doing. That is bound to be an extremely expensive and risky undertaking.
It is an extremely cheap way of obtaining party propaganda to complain when in Opposition about inadequate Service pay and inadequate equipment. In common with many other hon. Members, I was on the receiving end during the Second World War. We know what Service pay was like in those days, and Service men now are in the Klondyke compared with what we received. Like all other pay in the public service, Service pay is grossly inadequate. However,

within the context of a pay policy we must bear with it.
The problem about defence expenditure is that we have much more sophisticated and scientific equipment that is costing more and more. Service personnel are rightly demanding pay which is equivalent to that received by their counterparts in industry and which compensates them for the necessary discipline of Service life. It is a difficult problem to cope with whatever the colour of the Government in power.
One of the reasons why the House is so thinly attended when debates of this character take place is that hon. Members are sensitive of inadequacies in challenging Ministers who are equipped with a great deal of technical advice. We are simply not qualified to challenge them in very many important respects, although I exclude certain hon. Members with a life-long service in the Armed Forces who are better equipped than others of us.
With regard to what the Minister said about dockyards, it is quite deplorable that very few Members from dockyard constituencies have been present during the debate. There has been no one from Plymouth, for example, and Members on the Government side who represent dockyards have not been present, yet this is an extremely important part of the necessary provision for our naval defence.
With regard to Rosyth Dockyard, I comment on the complete absence of SNP Members throughout the debate. The SNP policy states quite frankly that when it gets, as it thinks it will, independence for Scotland, it will have a separate Scottish navy, army and air force.
Everyone here who is concerned with these matters knows that Rosyth has three extremely vital functions in defence. First, it is helping to protect our fisheries. Our fisheries have been mentioned by several hon. Members. Secondly, it protects or helps to protect our extremely valuable but vulnerable North Sea oil and gas resources in the North of Scotland and elsewhere. Thirdly, it services and refuels our nuclear submarines.
The SNP has said categorically that it wants to remove all nuclear facilities from Scotland. It also says that its navy—the Scottish navy—will be adequate enough to protect the oil platforms and


the fisheries, which will be separated from the English fisheries, although the fish will not know that. The Assembly in Edinburgh, the SNP believes, will do all these things.
There are more than 6,000 highly-skilled workers in the Rosyth Dockyard. More than one-third of them, quite properly highly paid, are servicing the nuclear submarines. If that nuclear provision is to be eliminated from Scotland, it follows, does it not, that Rosyth Dockyard could not possibly be a viable proposition? The workers of Scotland have a right to know where they stand, and the SNP Members should have been here to explain in great detail the consequences of their policy in this connection. It would inevitably lead to a closure of Rosyth Dockyard, which is the biggest employer in that part of Scotland, employing skilled men. It is very fundamental to the Fife economy and to the whole economy of the East of Scotland, in addition to being an extremely vital NATO base.
I was particularly anxious, therefore, to know that my hon. Friend the Minister had a specific passage in his speech on the dockyards in general. As I have said, the oil facilities are extremely vulnerable to terrorist activity, to submarine attack and so on. I am not at all convinced that the collaboration with our allies and the provision of naval vessels of one kind or another are wholly adequate to meet the extremely exacting demands in regard to the defence of this valuable asset, despite the fact that virtually the whole of our economic future, or a large part of it, depends on the extraction of these resources from the North Sea. It is imperative for the national economy and for the sake of our defence that they should be adequately defended by our Armed Forces.

Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has been making some critical remarks about the absence of hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies. I sympathise with him, because he was including his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). The hon. Gentleman may have meant to include me, but I remind him that if he cares to consult the record he will find that the time I have devoted to the discussion of dockyards as compared

with the amount of time he has spent is roughly in the ratio of 20 to one.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) has marked his attendance record, and that is good enough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the Front Benches will allow time for the House to hear two-minute contributions from the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). If that is done, everybody will have been accommodated.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am most grateful to have the opportunity of making this short contribution. If I had had the opportunity to speak for a little longer, I should have dealt with the subject of Service pay and conditions. However, there is one group of people who are overlooked consistently. They are known as the pre-1950 widows—the widows of men below the rank of warrant officer, class I, who retired before 1st September 1950. Those widows receive no pension from the Services.
I introduced a Bill on this subject entitled the Service Widows (Equality of Pensions) Bill, but objection was made by the Government Whips. I must tell the Government that nemesis is approaching. The noble Lady, Baroness Vickers, is introducing in the House of Lords a Bill in identical terms. I hope that that Bill will be approved on Second Reading and that it will pass through all its stages in the other place. The Government will then have to face the unattractive possibility of having to turn down a Bill which has been the subject of an Early-Day Motion that has now been signed by no fewer than 263 hon. Members.
These widows surely should not be overlooked any longer. It would surely be a more attractive posture for the Government to give in gracefully earlier rather than later.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I am obliged to the principal spokesman for allowing me to make a two-minute contribution. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on the number of orders placed on Tyneside for


naval vessels in the past few years. Had it not been for those orders, unemployment in the shipbuilding industry would have been desperate.
I wish the Minister to know that there are still some berths available. If he feels like placing some more orders, whether for large or small ships, we shall be pleased to build them.
I am not one of those who argue for savage defence cuts. I believe that we must have a good Navy. There has been a great deal of mention of Royal Navy personnel, but those personnel must have behind them good fighting ships. We on Tyneside, true to our traditions, are able to build good fighting ships. We shall be prepared to build more.
The Royal Navy is often referred to as the silent Service. Having examined the figures relating to Reservists in the Royal Marines and Royal Navy, I believe that if they fall any further it will be known as the "extinct Service ".The Minister should examine the publicity effort in the seaports, where there is a long tradition relating to the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. Perhaps a recruitment campaign could be conducted there on the same lines as those conducted elsewhere by the Army and Royal Air Force. I believe that in the long term such a campaign will prove to be a good investment.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Robert Banks: I wish first to refer to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), who referred to the late Sir Peter Kirk, whose memorial service was held today. I know that all hon. Members in the Chamber will wish to be associated with those expressions of regret at Sir Peter's sad death. We remember his keen interest in the Royal Navy. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) referred to Sir Peter's work in respect of HMS "Belfast" and all he did to ensure that the ship should become a museum on the River Thames.
I also wish to refer to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I have on many occasions appeared on television programmes with the hon. Gentleman because before he came to the House he acted as inter

viewer and linkman on many television programmes. On every occasion I met him in that sphere he was always extremely courteous. We look forward to hearing further from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member referred to his predecessor. The Opposition wish to be associated with his words of regret.
The annual debate on the Royal Navy carries with it significant importance in that it provides an opportunity for a general review of the state of the Navy. It comes at a time of growing and more vociferous concern for our defence capabilities and that of NATO compared with the size of the Russian machine.
The debate is appropriately timed. Yesterday the Ministers in Brussels issued a communiqué at the end of their meeting. That communiqué referred to some grave and important points in our defence strategy. I shall quote two points from that communiqué. The Ministers:
expressed their concern at the steady expansion of Warsaw Pact military capabilities.
They went on to say that these forces had become increasingly offensive in posture and were now capable of projecting Soviet power on a global scale. In the light of these developments they stressed the urgent need for NATO to maintain and improve its defensive capabilities.
The Minister made an interesting speech which was mainly concerned with the welfare and conditions of members of the Royal Navy. He spoke of WRENs. chaplains and other matters of concern. I maintain that at a time when we are dealing with a grave and significant challenge to the defence capability of NATO we should be concerning ourselves with how we can deal with this threat. That was reinforced by the Ministers at their meeting in Brussels yesterday. The Minister is a man of good intentions. He has a heart of oak, not in the sense that he is hard-hearted, but in the sense that his heart lies in the interests of the Royal Navy.
We must ensure that our country is properly defended. The Royal Navy is the most important part of our defensive shield. We want the Minister to give a categorical assurance that there will be no further cuts during the life of this Parliament. That might not be asking very much, because I have a suspicion that this is the last annual debate on the


Royal Navy that we shall have in this Parliament.
Where do the Government stand with the communiqué, which calls for an increase of 3 per cent. in real terms in defence expenditure? That is an important commitment to NATO. It is important because of our relationship with NATO and because we are an ally of great standing within the NATO alliance. We have therefore a duty to ensure that we comply with that which is agreed amongst Ministers of the NATO countries.
Labour Back Benchers appear to have a forlorn look. Certainly, the battles for saving our defence have been lost. One might ask "Where have all the Tribunes gone?". The Government have played to their tune. After the exhaustive defence review which was published in 1975 we have suffered cuts of great severity.
It is significant that on 12th January, at the conclusion of the defence debate, 76 Labour Members voted for further cuts in defence expenditure. The Government are now in the Liberal lifeboat. It will be up to them to indicate the support that they will give.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is not with us. He spoke earlier but he did not give any indication about where the Liberal Party stands on defence policy. We want to know where the Liberals stand. The Liberal Party is supposed to stand for the national interest. I put the security and defence of our country at the forefront of our national interest.
When the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) spoke about the need to sustain our social policies I thought that he was echoing some of the speeches that might have been made in this Chamber in the 1930s. We are seeing a steady and remorseless growth of Russian maritime strength. We have relentlessly opposed the cuts that the Government have instigated in our defence programme. We have heard speeches made by Service men of great standing. The defence chiefs went to see the Prime Minister in a last desperate effort to stop the last defence cut from taking place.
But this has all fallen on deaf ears. Even with the NATO ministerial meeting

in Brussels we find that there is no reaction from the Government to show what they propose to do to make this country a more comfortable and secure place.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman's representation of the first part of my speech was grossly inaccurate. If he reads it carefully, he will see that what I was complaining about was the demand for such increase in defence expenditure as would imperil the social programme, but at the same time I made it very clear that I recognised the importance of the increased Soviet defence capacity and expenditure.

Mr. Banks: I think that the hon. Gentleman should consider the immense amount of money that has been cut from defence in order to secure the very social programme about which he is talking. Therefore, when we are talking about increases, we are really talking about restoring some of the cuts that have been made.
The cuts that have been made in the defence review result, for instance, in 5,000 Service jobs being lost, some 15 per cent. of the planned number of destroyers being axed along with 25 per cent. of the conventional submarines and 30 per cent. of the other vessels. This refers to the period up to 1984. That in itself is a devastating cut to a Navy which is the spearhead of our defence of these islands.
I refer to the Second Report from the Expenditure Committee. It is an all-party Committee, as we all know. It takes long and searching looks at our defence capabilities. It took a long and searching look at the effects of the 1975 defence review. In one of its conclusions it said,
Our forces are small and our reserves are few. A future war could allow no time to make good weaknesses. We consider that the House should be aware of the consequences for our defence capability and for our contribution to the NATO Alliance if further major cuts were to be imposed.
That conclusion was reprinted in a further report of that Committee which dealt with further cuts. I remind the House that four separate cuts on defence expenditure were made following that initial conclusion.
We have to consider not only the effects of these cuts on the Royal Navy but the


lost opportunities that have arisen in the last few years. I refer to the loss of the scientists and the talent that we have had behind our Navy, the people who have worked to give us the technology to improve our weapons.
So many of these people have left this country to work elsewhere because of the taxation advantages and because they have had a better deal. They have been lured by other countries to go and work there. We are losing some of the young and some of the middle-aged talent that we can ill afford to lose at this time. Even so, the Government have cut research and development by some 10 per cent.
It is the strength, the order and the deployment of the Navy that are most crucial. We can compare—as hon. Members have done on many occasions—the expenditure that we place for the Navy with that of France and West Germany, for instance, or of other countries. However, the fact is that we are an island. It was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walker) in his excellent speech that we depend on our sea lines for our supplies and our reinforcements. We have the third largest merchant fleet. We should consider that 45 per cent. of our food, 88 per cent. of our timber and 63 per cent. of our iron and steel come by sea. Therefore, that gives us a special responsibility to ensure that we have the ships to equip us with the required safety along those sea lines.
Historically, we are a nation of sailors. We are a natural maritime leader in the NATO context. We have a special guard over the Channel approaches and the Eastern Atlantic. It is those areas that we guard, and we would have to deal with them in the first instance whenever a situation arose. We have 26 personnel in the NATO headquarters structure compared with 26 members on the American side. That underlines the importance of the British Navy to the NATO structure. Our position in the world context is as a focal point to the sea routes to Europe. The Royal Navy influences other individuals. Fifty-six countries send their cadets and ratings here for training. Ours is a particularly active commitment to NATO. We have an influence and responsibility, and we would do well to remember and recognise it.
When we are considering the possibility for reinforcements in a period of activity or tension, we should also consider the rôle of the merchant fleet and the necessity to be able to call up merchant shipping for the use of making those reinforcements. That is possible under the present legislation which allows for merchant ships to be requisitioned in an emergency. I would test that by saying that we need to ensure that merchant ships can be used at an early stage in a period of tension. That is a facet of this first test which is crucial not only to our security but to the security of Europe and NATO.
But NATO must react and must have sufficient international forces to be able to balance any Russian test that may be made upon it. Our political will is dependent upon international capability and the deployment and ability of our Navy to search and undertake the task that it would have to do in a situation of warning. Our task must be to neutralise a tense situation. Of course, we must be prepared for an escalation to the nuclear stage. We should be prepared and equipped. But our solid aim above all is to preserve peace, and we can do that only if we take action at the initial point in time when our conventional forces will be put under stress. Defence requires quantity of ships and air cover.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) referred to the number of Russian submarines. There are four times the number now that there were 10 years ago. A Russian submarine, or any submarine for that matter, is a dangerous weapon. It is a weapon of aggression. It is not a defensive weapon. We must ask ourselves why the Russian navy has built this number of submarines. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary referred to this matter in the speech he made only yesterday. The Russians have twice the number of missile cruisers that they had six years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) referred to the improvements that the Soviet navy has made it in its weapons and training. That is an important contribution to our debate. There is no doubt that the West needs to look to its defences and to ways in which it can find the means of providing more ships and more cover to balance the


enlarged Soviet navy. That is a fact of reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clithero drew attention to the writings of Admiral Gorchkov, the commander-in-chief of the Soviet navy. He wrote a book called "The Sea Power of the State" published last year. In that book he said—I am paraphrasing—"the growing maritime might of our country ensures the successful implementation of her foreign policy and gives our nation a most important weapon for realising her historical mission."
He records that in the 1950s the Russians set out on a vast programme of building a mighty ocean-going navy armed with nuclear missiles. That they are achieving. He goes on along the lines that attacks on the enemy's communications lines have now become for the Russian Navy one of its most important tasks in the totality of its efforts aimed at destroying the enemy's military-economic potential.
That, I suggest, is a significant indication of why the Russians have built the fleet that they now possess. It is an easy task to rattle sabres, but we must face the reality of the situation because it will be too late if we do it when we are put to the test and are found wanting.
I should like to turn to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). He referred to the northern flank. The Russians have two-thirds of their navy based on the North Cape area. Here are two-thirds of their nuclear submarine force and three-quarters of their conventional submarine force. I reckon that this is the largest naval base in the world, and it is situated at Murmansk.
The northern flank is of particular importance to the Royal Navy. The land forces in North Norway are also of great strategic importance. Earlier this year I had the privilege of going to North Norway to see 45 Commando during its arctic warfare training. It is training a ski battalion for arctic warfare, and 42 Commando will be there next year. But it is significant that the troops are undertaking a snowshoe training programme because, I have been told, there are not sufficient funds to secure for them the skis they need. Here we have talented people

giving their service to the Royal Marines but being deprived of ski training only because the money is not available for them to do what everyone would like them to do.
This is an important area. One of the main problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice was quick to point out, is that we have a problem in getting the Royal Marines there as a reinforcement to the Norwegians. I hope that one of the means by which this can be overcome is to negotiate with the Norwegian army, which I know is working closely with the Royal Marines, to have stockpiles at various points so that these can be utilised should the need ever arise.
Communications with the Norwegians are vital and here, more than in any other area, I suspect, we have to ensure that we have common communication between the two sides. This was evidenced in exercises when it was not possible always to have common communications between the two forces.
Clothing and equipment are of great importance. Having slept in a tent at 18 degrees below freezing, I could explain what it is like, but time does not permit me to do so. The development of equipment has been extremely good and we have a potential here for supplying equipment to other armies.
Reserve doctors can be of great value here, because it is so important that everyone is physically fit and avoids the problems of low temperatures. Reserve doctors could play a part here and they are needed by the Commandos.
In passing I reiterate my support for the Minister in what he said about the work of the Royal Marines in Northern Ireland and of the Royal Navy in patrolling the shores of the northern coast.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester, have referred to pay in the Services. This is a striking example of a situation which does not give much confidence to the Services. An able seaman in barracks will be 50p better off as a result of the pay award. If he were married and living in quarters, he would be £1·70 a week better off. A lieutenant-commander living in barracks would be only 50p a week better off, and if he were married and living in quarters


he would not do so well as the able seaman since he would get only £1·30. That points to a basic fault in the taxation system and shows how it deliberately destroys a differential.
References have been made to the problems of Service men in letting their houses when they are away from them. It is no good the Minister giving us these bland assurances, well-intentioned though they may be. We want action. It is a simple matter of bringing the relationship between landlord and tenant within the law so that if someone lets his house for a fixed period, he can get it at the expiry of that period.
The Minister referred to the dockyards, and this is a subject that deserves special attention. For generations the dockyards have been a continuing problem for the Navy. This goes back to Nelson's time. He had problems with the dockyards. There is no doubt that a number of ships have a great difficulty in getting a quick turn-round in the dockyards. The Government must show more zeal and attention in ensuring the establishment of a more cost-effective basis for the running of the dockyards. They must be run by proper, well-equipped management teams.
The Minister referred to capital expenditure, and he might have been referring to the dockyard at Devonport. Here is a sorry tale and I am glad that he mentioned it. I would refer briefly to some of the capital projects there. The frigate complex was approved in 1969 at a cost of £5 million. In May 1976 it was completed at a cost of £17 million. The submarine intermediate refit facility was approved in 1970 at a cost of £1·1 million and was completed in 1976 at a cost of £3,850,000. The submarine refitting complex was approved in 1972, at a cost of £13·5 million and yet in 1976 the end price was £42 million. The final example is the fleet and submarine maintenance base facilities, approved in 1971 at a cost of £1·2 million completed in 1975 at a cost of £7·5 million.
We are talking about ships, equipment and weapons that could have been supplied had proper cost-effectiveness been applied to these capital building works. That is an area where there are deficiencies. There is a sorry tale in the appropriation accounts of difficulties in

planning, changed requirements, and general delays. We should like to know how it is that in four distinct areas costs have escalated by more than three times.
I wish also to refer to shipbuilding, another area of sad delays. We have to find a way in which ships can be built faster and more reliably so that when keels are put down we know when we are to get these ships. These inadequacies provide great stress for the Royal Navy because it is the Navy that is waiting for the ships, which, unfortunately, are not arriving on time.
In answer to a question I was given dates for the laying down of the keels of ships that have been approved so far. The Ministry does not follow the practice of giving expected completion dates for ships under construction. I do not know why the Ministry is so coy, because everybody knows roughly the time it takes for our shipbuilding industry to get these things done.
The southern flank is of great importance to NATO, probably as important as the northern flank, but we are no longer a presence on the southern flank. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester spoke of this, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester, both referring to the problems arising as a result of the withdrawal of the Nimrod squadron and to the importance of Cyprus. We want to see more exercises on the southern flank to ensure that the British Navy is there to give support to our allies. We also want an assurance from the Minister that our withdrawal has not led to a weakening, and we want to know whether he can show that our withdrawal has been filled.
Many hon. Gentlemen have referred to the problems of fishery protection. This subject has recently had so much publicity that it does not need me to reiterate what so many have said about our anxiety over the Island class. These are no ships to be crowing about. They are and have been shown to be expensive. Every hon. Member has referred to their slowness.
I do not believe that we have here a dramatic new design that has done great things for the Royal Navy. It is nothing to be so proud about. Are we so behind that we cannot produce something more fitting the need, faster and


able to have a helicopter on board to become the eyes of the ship?
Offshore oil rigs fall into the same category. We want from the Minister a categorical assurance that this priceless asset is to be properly screened and protected by the Royal Navy. Perhaps in passing he will give us an assurance that this is the prime responsibility of the Royal Navy and that it must be up to the Royal Navy to ensure that the oil rigs are properly protected.
We have had an interesting debate on the Royal Navy. At the end we can at least say that its morale is remarkably good considering what it has had to put up with. It has constantly had a question mark hanging over much of its future because of the cuts. People in the Royal Navy are proud of their ships. They have a relationship with them. They need ships to fulfil their task. I hope that the Minister will give the assurances that so many of us have sought tonight.
There was the sadness of the sinking of HMS "Fittleton". I congratulate the Minister on the way that he dealt with that matter, with one exception. I refer to the recompense, if that is the right word, to the dependants of those who lost their lives.
Is there not now a case for having an insurance policy to cover Reservists on training commitments so that if a similar occurence takes place—heaven forbid!—their dependants will be adequately compensated? Should there not be an obligation on the Ministry of Defence to ensure that people are left with a pension of more than £400 or £500 for the loss of someone who has perhaps given many years of service to the Reserves at weekends and in two-week training periods?
I have no doubt that at the end of the day the Royal Navy will triumph. It is a fine and great Service. So is the Royal Marines. However, the Navy needs the ships and the equipment to undertake the great responsibility that it carries so well on its shoulders.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Duffy: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been made in the debate.
First, I compliment the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on his debut

at the Dispatch Box. He made a most effective contribution. It was a very good start. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will have to look to his laurels. He will be under great pressure in being surrounded by colleagues who make speeches which are every bit as good as his.

Mr. Churchill: Better.

Mr. Duffy: That is to the hon. Gentleman's credit. Certainly he is surrounded by colleagues who are just as concerned as he is about these matters. Some of his colleagues are very well informed.
For example, the hon. Member for Harrogate was in Norway for two weeks before 7th February. I know of the conditions that he shared with the Royal Marines and how much they appreciated his presence, with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). I know that the hon. Gentleman also went to camp in Mid-Wales with the Royal Marines. That is the kind of interest that marks a man out as genuine in his approach to defence matters. It also tells me that he will make an effective speech, and that is exactly what he did tonight.
I should like to refer to the NATO communique. NATO Ministers have agreed that they will aim at an annual increase in defence expenditure in real terms in the region of 3 per cent. for the period of 1979–84, recognising that for some individual countries economic circumstances will affect what can be achieved and that for some countries their present force contributions may justify a higher level of increase. Specific target figures for each country will need to be determined in the course of the normal NATO defence planning review process. Further, the Government will take full account of the needs of the Alliance in determining in due course our future levels of defence expenditure. No one is in doubt that our security is founded on NATO.
A number of hon. Members—notably the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)—referred to the withdrawal of Nimrods from Malta. That was a decision that had to be taken in the defence review. Much as we might regret it, the decision was not to commit


forces to the Mediterranean but to concentrate them in areas where they could make the most significant contribution to our security and that of the Alliance.
I have noted the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester on the defence of Gibraltar, including the mining of the straits and the provision of MCMV and Exocet.
The hon. Member for Stretford paid tribute to the high quality of the officers we provide at AFSOUTH in Naples. I visited Naples just after Easter, and I could not have been more impressed by the high quality of these men and the high regard in which they are held by our NATO allies. I assure the hon. Member that they will remain there.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester also mentioned the Anglo-United States exchanges and the officer he met during his visit to the United States Sixth Fleet, along with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who unfortunately, because of another engagement, cannot be here for the winding-up speech. That officer was part of a continuing programme of exchanges which has been in operation for many years. The two navies exchange officers to fill equivalent billets in a great number of appointments afloat and among headquarters staff in administrative training establishments. These exchanges are considered by both sides to provide extremely valuable experience, not least in the operation of each other's systems.
Since the 1974 defence review it has been Government policy for our ships to visit the Mediterranean from time to time, and we continue to participate in exercises there with our NATO allies. I would like to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester that where the opportunity arises we continue to participate with our allies in Naval On-Call Force Mediterranean. We have participated fully in two large NATO exercises in January and February of this year in the Western Mediterranean, and at the height of our involvement we had one cruiser, several guided-missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear and conventional submarines and support ships participating.
We are now participating in a major exercise in the Eastern Mediterranean with a contribution of one guided-missile destroyer, four frigates and a conventional submarine. We shall continue to participate with our allies in the southern flank whenever the opportunity arises and whenever it does not clash with our priority commitments in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas.
I have noted what the hon. Member for Haltemprice said about Soviet naval forces in the Indian Ocean. At present there is a broad overall balance between Western—that is, United States, British and French—and Soviet naval presences. The Soviet naval presence has remained relatively static in recent years. Although our defence resources mean that we no longer have a global presence, our Navy can be deployed world-wide in defence of our interests. From time to time we deploy task groups of ships to the Indian Ocean and the Far East. A group of nine ships was in the Indian Ocean last year exercising there with our CENTO allies.
It is a pleasure to join in complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on his maiden speech. I understand that he has been made a prisoner by the Finance Bill Committee upstairs, otherwise it would have been a greater pleasure to tell him how impressed we were with his maiden speech. It is easy to say these words—one has heard them from time to time in one's parliamentary career—but it was a speech with charm and eloquence. His tribute to Tony Crosland was deep and convincing. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester said that we looked forward to hearing my hon. Friend again. That was also a genuine sentiment, certainly one that I endorse.
The House was also touched by the tribute paid to Peter Kirk. All hon. Members will join in the condolences to his widow and in saying how much we miss him. As the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester reminded me, I am fortunate to be in my position, and I know that. I am also fortunate, as he said, to be associated with those who went before me, not least Peter Kirk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby expressed anxiety about whether the protection forces would be adequate


to achieve successful enforcement within our new fishery limits, which were extended to 200 miles on New Year's Day. He mentioned the enormous area that must now be covered and asked whether our forces were adequate for the policing task. Without giving any impression of complacency, I should like to assure him that we believe that they are, although we shall watch developments carefully. After five months' experience, I do not hesitate to assure my hon. Friend and the House that I believe we have the right combination of ships and aircraft.
The Nimrods contribute enormously to the economic, timely and effective deployment of the ships. Depending on the density of fishing activity, the Nimrod can cover from 500 square miles to 5,000 square miles an hour. The average is expected to be about 2,000 square miles an hour.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice suggested that we should have been better advised to use converted trawlers for that offshore task rather than procure the new Island class. We do not consider that the adaptation of trawlers would be as cost-effective as new ships in terms of the remaining hull life or continuing support. Moreover, the characteristics required for small ships designed for offshore protection work are primarily good sea-keeping and endurance, and we believe already that the new ships have both. Neither high speed nor heavy armament should be required in policing an internationally agreed fisheries régime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) asked me about the maximum speed of the Island class. It is 16 knots, although "Jersey" has already done more. But we regard 16 knots as sufficient for normal patrolling duties. Contrary to popular belief, very few trawlers are capable of 16 knots, and, of course, while they are actually fishing they are restricted to between three knots and five knots.
There are faster ships available as well, such as frigates, which we can call at short notice to support the patrol ships. We should bear in mind the time that was available for procurement. We have done all this since 1974 at a total cost of £17½

million. I believe that we are getting good value for money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) said that the Island class did not carry helicopters. It seemed to me that he was under the erroneous impression that vessels of that class would be involved in various logistic support activities which are the responsibility of the oil companies. Be that as it may, I assure my hon. Friend that the additional construction cost of equipping the Island class vessels with helicopters would have been out of all proportion to the limited benefits that might have resulted.

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of terrorist activities? The only way in which he will be able to get a rig back from terrorists will be to use helicopters. Can he confirm Press reports that he is considering providing a limited number of faster ships for this purpose?

Mr. Duffy: We are watching all the time the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised in his second point. Some hon. Members from both sides of the House have been to see me, and, with my officials, I have gone into the matter thoroughly and shall continue to do so. I invite any hon. Member who wishes to do so to join me in such discussions. We are alive to that contingency.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is that we have a quick reaction capability, manned, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, by the Royal Marines. We are equally alive to that contingency. In both contingencies we shall, where necessary, be backed up by the entire inventory of the Armed Forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked about the allocation of fishery protection vessels to certain areas. There are four main offshore patrolling areas—North Sea North, North Sea South, Western Approaches and West of Scotland. The last of those is covered by Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (Scotland) vessels. For each of the other three we intend to have a vessel of the Island class available at any one time. Meanwhile, frigates are filling the gap. In answer to another question, I can assure hon. Members that HMS "Jersey" was


up to the task of making the first arrest of a Soviet trawler fishing illegally in British waters on 7th April.
The hon. Member for Stretford raised the problem of weight growth of Sea Wolf. Sea Wolf is probably the best guided weapon system in the world for close-range defence of ships against missiles. Trials have been encouraging. It has suffered weight growth in development, but this is not unacceptable in the development of advanced systems when the threat itself is developing. Ship fitting is planned for the Type 22 and other frigates on as wide a basis as possible, but the final decisions have still to be taken.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth raised questions about the Mark 8 torpedo. Modernisation of our torpedo stock is continuing, and the deployment of the Mark 24 Tigerfish is also continuing. The Mark 24 which is launched from ships and aircraft was introduced two years ago and development is now virtually complete. The hon. Member for Tynemouth also asked whether the Sub-Martel would not be cheaper than the Sub-Harpoon in view of devaluation. Cost comparisons with the Sub-Martel are meaningless since it has been a long time since work on it stopped and the estimates are much earlier than those which have been made for the Sub-Harpoon. It cannot be supposed that the estimates for the Sub-Martel would remain unchanged. Negotiations with the United States are continuing and I can assure the House that the project is alive.
The matter of the Vosper Harrier carrier has been raised. Naturally, hon. Members will wish Vospers well in its efforts to find customers for the Harrier carrier. It was rather later in the field than the ASW cruiser and it represents a different concept. The primary rôles of the ASW cruiser are several, involving the deployment of Sea King ASW helicopters, command and control, and a contribution to area air defence with Sea Dart and, now, the deployment of the Sea Harrier. We believe that this variety of rôles is more cost-effectively deployed in one hull, although this requires a ship of the size of HMS "Invincible".
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) spoke of the advantages of the hovercraft for the MCMV rôle. I

and the Minister of State for Defence have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman on the subject, and the hon. Gentleman recently led a deputation of workers from the hovercraft factory at Cowes to see the Minister of State. Had it not been for this debate, I should have been with the hon. Gentleman today on the Isle of Wight. I look forward to joining him there on a day yet to be mutually agreed, but I hope that it will be next month.
The hon. Member for Stretford also spoke about reports on Soviet lasar capabilities. The Government believe that the reports in Aviation Weekly were grossly exaggerated. We keep a close eye on all lasar technology in the Soviet Union, and we have no evidence about whether a weapon of the sort envisaged would be a practical proposition. We notice that this view has been corroborated by the statement issued by the United States Defence Department to the effect that there is no truth in the rumours to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester asked about the scale of training that the Royal Navy provides for the personnel of navies of allied and other countries. The amount of training done varies somewhat from year to year, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we do our best to help in the requirements that are expressed to us while taking care that what we do does not affect our own vital training task. None the less, considerable training facilities of this kind are made available and in 1976 alone some 5,000 foreign and Commonwealth naval personnel were trained in the United Kingdom.
I should like to acknowledge the interest that has been shown in dockyards by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean). My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham raised questions about communications and industrial democracy. I can assure him that action is being taken in the dockyards to improve consultation and communication at all levels. Arrangements exist at Chatham, and the action that is required to overcome any weaknesses is considered by a sub-committee comprising management, staff and trade union representatives.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade told the House on 26th January, although the terms of reference of the Bullock Committee were confined to the private sector the Government have put in hand a continuing series of studies in consultation with the appropriate unions and management into the scope for the extension of participation in the public services within the accepted principles that govern the operation of elected bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham will know of my interest in the application of this democracy in dockyards, especially Chatham. He will know of one initiative that I took early on in my present appointment in respect of the dockyard at Chatham.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough referred to pension parity. The pension entitlement of Service personnel and their dependants is governed by regulations in force at the time of retirement, and it is a basic principle of superannuation that those no longer engaged in an occupation do not benefit from improvements introduced after they leave. Because of the financial implications involved no Government have accepted the principle of making improvements retrospective. For this reason, the level of entitlement to pensions will vary between ex-Service men or their dependants, depending on when they served.
Many hon. Members raised the question of standardisation and interoperability, mainly in relation to our membership of NATO. I can assure the House that, in concert with our allies, we continue our efforts to achieve the maximum practical level of standardisation and interoperability of equipment. Both these points were stressed by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester. It must be recognised that in these areas success cannot be achieved overnight, and in the naval sphere the priority areas are in such fields as communications, fuel and interchangeable ammunition.
On communications, the increasing cost and complexity of equipment is a growing problem that is recognised within NATO, but vigorous efforts are being made to try to ensure that the existing degree of interoperability is at least preserved and, where possible, strengthened.
A common naval fuel has practically been achieved. Collaborative projects such as the new family of anti-ship missiles will do much to improve the logistic flexibility in the long term, as will steady work that is going on in such areas as common engineering standards and common components.
One of the closest areas of co-operation within NATO that I have come across is between the Royal Marines and the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps. On a visit to Arbroath in November, I saw Dutch Marines training alongside our own 45 Commando in preparation for the Clockwork deployment to North Norway. In March, I saw marines of both nations working together in Norway.
Since 1973, the Royal Marines and the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps have co-operated under the terms of the Joint Memorandum of Understanding signed by both Ministers of Defence. This allows the Royal Netherlands units, consisting of an amphibious combat group of commando size and an independent company, to be placed under Royal Marine command for operations in NATO, joint training and exchange of personnel. Wherever practicable, the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps is buying British equipment that is in use by the Royal Marines or is planned to come into service, and a considerable degree of compatibility has been achieved here. The two corps have achieved a degree of co-operation and understanding that is unique in Western Europe and is an example to all who believe in the solidarity of NATO.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) referred to the case of Anthony Quinn. I was able to agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend said. In particular, I endorse whole-heartedly his description of the nature of the community in South Yorkshire in which this young man resides. As my hon. Friend said, there is a readiness to serve. That is recognised by all those in this House who represent South Yorkshire, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I am aware of my hon. Friend's real concern. I accept what he said about the young man's intention to join the Royal Navy. I can appreciate the disappointment that he felt when he was not


accepted. I appreciate not only Anthony's disappointment but that of his parents and those who have his interests at heart. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that I fully share his interest in Anthony Quinn. However, he must allow me to set the case in a different and simpler context from that on which he based his eloquent remarks.
Many applications that are provisionally accepted are not finally confirmed. The letter sent to Anthony made it clear that the acceptance was provisional. It did not represent a firm letter of acceptance. Nevertheless, I have thought it right most carefully to re-examine the case. Having done so, I am afraid that I feel unable to reverse the decision to turn down the application.
I cannot resist one remark before I come to my peroration. I take up the references that have been made to the presence in the Chamber of Labour Members. It was said that the Labour Benches have had a forlorn appearance. It is only right to put on record—so often the reverse is put on the record by Conservative Members—that for most of the day there was a majority of Labour Members in the Chamber.
Any final and overall assessment of the Navy that I may offer the House has obvious limitations. I am a layman and I cannot attempt a rigorously professional approach. However, I experienced the Navy at close quarters in World War Two. I could never cease to be grateful for the benefit of that experience, nor wish to exchange the leadership that sustained me or forget the acts of valour and quality of leadership that set the seal on the Navy's contribution to the victory of British arms.
When I visit both shore establishments and the Fleet, I am struck most of all by the improvement that is strikingly in evidence in all departments. Ships' hulls are superior and there has been a fundamental revolution in weapon design. The education of the personnel who man them is more profound and their training and subsequent standards are incomparably improved. The quality of leadership at all levels has never been higher. Indeed, the Navy that I knew has already passed into history. Its successor is not merely worthy but promises to be better.
The House may recall my previous concern for public expenditure and the calls I made both in the House and outside for public bodies to demonstrate value for money. I am bound to say that I do not know of any recipients of public money that give the British taxpayer a greater return on its investment than the Fleet.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — RENT (AGRICULTURE) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee),considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,

That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948.—[Mr. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — RHYL (AREA STATUS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.—[Mr. Strauss.]

10.0 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In the next few months many thousands of people who visit my constituency will visit Rhyl in particular. They will come because they have been before or because friends have recommended them to come. They will not come because of any


recommendation by the Wales Tourist Board, which seems to regard the place as being not quite posh enough to meet its standards, and whose brochure includes virtually no holiday accommodation in Rhyl.
Those who come to Rhyl will have a good time. The weather really is better than it is a few miles away. The people are kind and welcoming. Above all, Rhyl is exceptionally good value for money. But if they keep their eyes open and look around, the visitors to Rhyl will see a town slipping downhill—not exactly slipping, but being pushed. As they walk from the station or the bus terminal to the beach, they will pass the empty shops in the High Street. There are now 50 empty shops in the town.
When they get to the famous golden sands they may be a bit put off by the visible evidence at the water's edge of the pollution that goes on unchecked in Liverpool Bay. If they do not fancy a paddle in the sea, or if it comes on to rain—and even in Rhyl it rains sometimes—they will wander along the promenade to where the borough council is trying to put up an all-weather sun centre, the first major investment in Rhyl's principal industry for many decades.
The first thing they will notice is that no work is being done on it, nor has there been for weeks. The trade union militants seem to have it in for Rhyl as surely as the Government have. The Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for the Environment, did their best to wreck this desperately needed project by frightening off the merchant bankers who had offered to put up the money for it. The Secretary of State for Wales, to his shame, refused to lift a finger to help. He even refused to receive a deputation from the council to advise it in its perplexity. But Rhyl managed to surmount this particular obstacle placed in its path by the Government, as it will have to surmount as best it can the Government's latest act of spiteful discrimination against it.
If he seriously wants to bathe, the visitor, for this season at any rate, will have to go inland to the sports centre and pool at Rhyl High School. If he were to run into the headmaster or

careers master, he would be given some pretty frightening statistics. He would be told that, for example, this summer there will be some 210 pupils leaving school and competing for a job in a market which last year offered only 102 openings and seems likely to offer fewer this year. It is not, therefore, surprising that unemployment among males between 16 and 24 is over 24 per cent.
It comes as an even greater shock, since the total female unemployment figure is "only" 8 per cent., to learn that among females in the 16 to 24 age group it is 45 per cent. Of course, after that age they give up hope and drop off the register and that helps to keep down the total figure. Even so, unemployment is still 14·3 per cent., and 197 per cent. for males.
None of this is surprising when we look at particular companies in the area. Chance Pilkington, which has for long been the best employer in the area, has reduced its work force from 800 in 1975 to 569 at present. In addition, ITT, which was perhaps the principal provider of jobs for women, has cut down even more drastically, from 401 in 1975 to 162 today. Its work was largely on Post Office contracts, and the Post Office has a rule giving preferential treatment in the award of contracts to firms in full development areas.
About the only bright spot is the agreement recently concluded between the Welsh Development Agency and Wettern Composites, which may lead to the advance factory built in Marsh Road taking on rather more than the half dozen or so who have been working there for the past year. But there we are talking about tens of jobs, not about the hundreds of jobs which are so urgently needed.
I am not, and never have been, a great believer in the effectiveness of the whole cumbrous apparatus of development areas, special development areas, investment incentives, employment premiums and so on. I would far rather see first-class road, rail and air communications, coupled with direct Government action where it is in their power to act directly—for example, in the dispersal of Government offices. But that exercise, arising from the Hardman Report, brought not a single job to Rhyl, although Rhyl's need for more office jobs is even


more desperate than is its need for factory jobs.
Even though I am deeply sceptical about the contribution that development area status can make to effective regional policy, I cannot ignore the serious danger to my constituency and to the jobs of my constituents now that almost the whole surrounding region has full development area status, and Rhyl and district do not. I fought as hard as I could for development area status for the whole of Clwyd. In August 1974 I wrote an anguished letter to the Secretary of State for Wales warning him of the fragile employment situation in the area and telling him that if it was left until the unemployment there had begun to rise steeply, it would be too late. I gave all the support I could, across party barriers, to the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), who is an Undersecretary of State for Wales, over help for his area.
Never in my wildest dreams did it occur to me that any Government could possibly discriminate in this matter between East Flint, where unemployment is high and rising, and West Flint, where it is much higher and rising just as fast. I did not believe that a Secretary of State for Wales—even this one—could for one moment be party to so blatantly unfair an arrangement.
The Secretary of State for Industry, announcing that East Flint was to get development area status and West Flint was not, spoke of "potential for industrial development ". Potential for industrial development indeed! That really is adding insult to injury. A drowning man whose head is being held under water has little potential for industrial development. I do not suppose that the man who fell among thieves on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho had much potential for industrial development, either. I do not know whether to cast the Minister in the rôle of a priest or a Levite, or, perhaps more aptly, as the thief who beat him up in the first place.
Of course, the Secretary of State for Industry did not really mean that Rhyl was being denied help because it lacked potential for industrial development. What he meant was that it belongs, and will continue to belong, in the wrong political camp so far as he is concerned.

Certainly after this kick in the teeth the Labour Party in West Flint can kiss goodbye to its deposit in any election in the next few years. But if the right hon. Gentleman can forget party political advantage for one moment, he might reflect on the fact that the Good Samaritan was not in the same political camp as was the man who fell among thieves.
My constituents have had a raw deal from this Government. Therefore, I look to the Minister tonight to give at least some evidence that he is aware of this and that he intends to do something about the situation. Will he join me in urging the Wales Tourist Board to be less snobbish in its attitude towards Rhyl? Will he look urgently into the anomaly whereby, because industry in Rhyl and Prestatyn are excluded from the benefits of development area status, tourism is likewise also excluded and this exclusion carries with it the still further disability that tourism in the area is debarred from obtaining EEC funds? This is an example of taking away from them that have not even that which they have.
Will the Minister see to it that Rhyl and Prestatyn are given top priority in the allocation of any jobs that may result from any further dispersal of Government offices? Perhaps more to the point, will he see to it that a directive is issued to the innumerable new agencies that sprout overnight like mushrooms—the Development Agency, the Water Authority, the Land Authority and all the rest—that when they are setting up branch offices they are to give absolute priority to the Rhyl employment exchange area?
Above all, will he undertake to examine forthwith the situation which has arisen in the Rhyl area, where unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is slipping out of control into a vortex—an area which, at a stroke, has been made that much less attractive to anybody thinking of bringing new jobs into the area or of expanding existing employment within the area?
In short, will the Minister now do something to dispel the well-founded suspicion that in the matter of regional policy the Government are concerned not with the employment needs of any area, but solely with whether they have any hope of clinging on to the seat at the next General Election?

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Absolute tripe!

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his debate. I associate myself with the complaint that he has made about the exclusion from development area status of this small part of the coastal belt of North Wales. I am glad to be able to support him, because I think that I am the only other Welsh Member part of whose constituency is outside the development area.
It makes geographical and administrative nonsense to cut out this small part. The effect is serious. Tourism is a most important industry in this area. Without development area status, there is little that the Wales Tourist Board can do to help, and, of course, any hope of getting EEC funds is excluded.
I believe that the criteria of unemployment in deciding whether development area status should be granted is wrong, because by the time unemployment has come about it is too late to do anything effective. I suggest that a more reasonable criteria would be economic activity.
If the Government need a ground for departing from the rules, I suggest the lack of infrastructure in the area. I hope that they will listen carefully to the pleas of my hon. Friend and myself.

10.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): This subject is important. The Government are much concerned about the consequences of unemployment wherever it is—in Rhyl, its surrounding area or anywhere else.
I categorically refute the claim by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that development area status is decided on political grounds. I utterly reject that. I also refute the allegation at the beginning of his speech about spiteful discrimination. The hon. Member has said that he was not a great believer in the assisted area concept. I am pleased to see that he has been converted on the road to Damascus.
The hon. Member once said:
Of all the emergency measures which might be taken, the least justifiable is the sloshing around of development area status, special

development area status, intermediate area status, and so on"—

Sir A. Meyer: I am still saying that.

Mr. Cryer: That makes my point even stronger, and perhaps it provides more reason for having this debate.
The hon. Member went on to say:
what might be called, if my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) were present, the Oswestry syndrome. All that this does is to shift puddles of unemployment from one place to another, rather like councils in South-East England trying to move gipsies from the area of one council into the area of an adjoining council".—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 28th April 1971, c. 30.]
Unemployment is a serious matter. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Flint, West is taking it more seriously than that quotation indicates he did in the past.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the background to the recent changes in the assisted areas and why it was decided not to make Rhyl a development area. The objective of regional policy is to deal with structural industrial and employment problems. Most areas with such problems are old industrial areas in which traditional industries—coal mining, steel, shipbuilding, textiles and so on—have run down but have not been adequately replaced by newer industries as these have chosen to go elsewhere. Problems are exemplified by high unemployment even when labour is short elsewhere over-dependence on a few industries and hence vulnerability to any changes affecting those industries, emigration, dereliction, and generally poor environment. The need here is to widen the existing industrial base by bringing in new industries with good long-term prospects to replace the declining industries.
In other areas problems are different. These are the rural and seaside areas, such as Rhyl, which have never been extensively industrialised and which depend largely on agriculture and service industries, especially tourism, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. These areas also need help, but not necessarily the same help. Although some of the symptoms are the same—high unemployment, especially during recessions, emigration of the young and immigration of the retired and near retired, creating an elderly population—the underlying characteristics are quite different. These areas need relatively small projects to


strengthen their industrial base and reduce dependence on the service sector.
They do not need—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree—major industrial projects, such as steel works, chemical plants and so on, because that would alter the whole character and nature of their attractions; indeed, It would end their attractions. Therefore, we must consider measures taken to help different areas against that background.
Regional policy is inherently long term. It seeks to deal with underlying structural problems, and it must inevitably take some time to have full effect. It is not directly concerned with the problems caused by the present world recession and, indeed, the whole of regional policy has developed from the 1930s and has been continuously developed since that time. The problems arising from the world recession must be tackled in other ways. I shall be commenting on that later.
Regional policy seeks to influence the location of industrial development by encouraging industry to develop as far as possible in the assisted areas. Regional assistance is designed to offset the additional costs involved in siting projects in these areas and to provide a deliberate bias in their favour. The grading of areas and the level of assistance available in them reflect the nature and seriousness of the problems in these areas.
There are three main forms of regional incentives: regional development grants, regional selective assistance and Government factories. All are available in special development and development areas, with a higher rate of regional development grant in the special development areas. Selective assistance, factories and regional development grants on buildings are available in intermediate areas, such as Rhyl. The main industrial benefit available in development areas but not in intermediate areas is thus RGDs on plant and machinery. In seaside and rural areas selective assistance is probably the most useful form of assistance as it can be tailored to the needs of the area and the project and it is specifically linked to the provision of safeguarding of jobs.
It is against that background that decisions were made recently about changes in the assisted areas. As I have said, regional policy is concerned with

long-term trends. At present, these are difficult to determine as they have been overlaid by the very high unemployment experienced by many areas, and indeed, many countries in Europe, as a result of world recession.
We would have preferred to leave the coverage unaltered until overall unemployment began to fall but there were some areas whose problems could not wait. These were areas in which prospects had worsened not merely as a result of the recession but because of particular developments affecting them; for example, the closure of the Courtaulds works in Flint, and the fishing dispute and several closures and redundancies in Hull and Grimsby—the closure, for example, of Imperial Typewriters in Hull. I do not need to emphasise the difficulties that have arisen peculiar to those ports because of the fishing dispute.
These areas needed extra assistance to overcome these specific blows. In considering their applications for higher status, the Government also looked at the position of other areas seeking higher status and those relatively prosperous areas whose existing status might no longer be necessary. The statutory criteria for the designation of the assisted areas are set out in Section I of the Local Employment Act 1972 as amended by the Industry Act 1972. This requires the Secretary of State to have regard to
all the circumstances actual and expected, including the state of employment and unemployment, population changes, migration and the objectives of regional policies".
Therefore, it does not depend exclusively and solely on the level of unemployment. Unemployment is thus only one factor, albeit an important one.
Another vital consideration is the effect of any changes on other assisted areas. The assisted areas in general and the special development areas and development areas in particular are already very extensive, covering 43 per cent. and 23 per cent., respectively, of all employees already. Quite clearly, any further extension of coverage would erode the preferential advantage given to the existing areas. In total land surface, about 65 per cent. of the United Kingdom is already covered by assisted area status.
It was for that reason that it was decided that changes should be kept to a minimum and that some areas should


be downgraded to intermediate areas to counterbalance the effects of upgradings. We have had representations about the downgrading to the status that Rhyl already has.
It was decided to upgrade Shotton, Hull and Grimsby to development areas but not Rhyl or Bridlington or several other smaller areas with higher unemployment because, as I have explained, it is not only unemployment that counts. It is also necessary to have regard to the characteristics of the areas concerned and their prospects for industrial development. Shotton, Hull and Grimsby are all industrial centres with prospects for extensive successful industrial development if assistance is provided to help them overcome their immediate problems.
Incidentally, development area status is not an easy solution in any event because Cardigan, for example, has development area status and at 17·5 per cent. has a much higher level of unemployment than Rhyl. Yet there are other areas of non-assistance, such as Clacton, which is a similar seaside resort and close to London in the South-East—we also get representations from the regions that too much is going to London and the South-East—yet Clacton, with non-assisted area status, has an unemployment level of 11·7 per cent.
The areas of high unemployment are not simply those in the assisted areas and the problem peculiar to seaside resorts stretches right across the whole of the non-assisted and assisted areas.
The Government were satisfied that the availability of regional development grants on plant and machinery in Hull and Grimsby would make a significant difference to their prospects for attracting the sort of new industrial projects which they need. The situation in Rhyl and the other areas in question is different. Most of these areas, as I have said, are largely rural and seaside. The problems from which they suffer are typical of such places. The Government were not satisfied that in their circumstances the availability of development area benefits would significantly improve their prospects while it would, by extending the development areas further, erode the preferential advantages of the existing areas.
This is by no means to underrate the acute problems in these areas—unemployment in Rhyl is at a level which can only be regarded as appalling—but only to say that there are other and more appropriate methods of tackling the problems that have arisen.
I should like to spend a moment outlining the measures available to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. First, there are the regional incentives already available. The selective forms of assistance can do much to encourage suitable development in the area. A Government advance factory has been built and successfully let. Four projects are going ahead with the aid of selective financial assistance and are expected to create some 240 jobs of which most have already been provided but it is hoped, up to 70 jobs are yet to come.
This is a small but nevertheless valuable contribution to reducing unemployment in the area at a time when new investment generally throughout the whole country has been low, and when there has been little mobile industry to steer to the assisted areas. When the economy improves, the availability of selective assistance will be an essential asset in encouraging industry to invest in Rhyl. The Welsh Office will take every appropriate opportunity to interest companies in developing in the area.
I add that my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Wales is present and is taking an interest. I know that he has met the hon. Gentleman to discuss a particular aspect that the hon. Gentleman has raised in the past. I would also point out that, in order to enable the Government to provide more selective assistance, we have abolished the regional employment premium. This has not been done without criticism from the development areas. However, we have done it so that areas of greatest need, including areas such as Rhyl which are not subject to REP, can have temporary employment subsidy given to them.
As I have demonstrated, the unemployment levels are variable. I am happy to point out that currently in the Rhyl area there are 136 workers who are subject to temporary employment subsidy, and that means that 136 jobs have been saved, it is hoped permanently.
Secondly I refer to the Welsh Development Agency, which can contribute to the development of industry in any part of Wales. The Agency has recently announced that it has taken an equity stake in the Wettern Electric Company which is developing a new power cable jointing system. The WDA has taken a 30 per cent. stake and will advance £150,000 to the company by way of short-term loans.
The NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies were set up against the opposition of the Conservatives. Already the Conservatives have promised to abolish the NEB, yet here is the WDA operating specifically to the benefit of Rhyl and providing jobs. The financial support of the WDA should enable the company's work force to be increased from 20 to 75 as production expands. The Agency will be ready to support other worthwhile companies in intermediate areas or elsewhere.
Thirdly, the Government have introduced various measures to reduce unemployment caused by the recession. These include the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation programme, job release schemes and schemes to reduce unemployment among young people. The hon. Member for Flint, West mentioned this as a matter of grave concern. It is a matter of grave concern all over the country, Rhyl included. But in Rhyl we have provided 159 places under the work experience scheme. Under the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, 58 school leavers have been assisted. Under the job release scheme, 66 people have been assisted. These schemes have therefore been of direct value in the area.
The Department of Employment is already at this moment considering methods for bringing jobs and helping young people. This is a matter of serious and real concern to the Government, and we are tackling it as best we can against a background of very severe economic difficulty. Certainly by the end of last

month the schemes I have mentioned had secured several hundred jobs in the Rhyl area.
The hon. Member mentioned the importance of tourism to the economy of the area. I refute his suggestion that the Wales Tourist Board has discriminated against Rhyl on some basis of snobbery. The board expects certain standards to be maintained and it is certainly extremely willing to advertise all the facilities in Rhyl which meet its standards. I am sure that all Welsh Members recognise that the board is doing a good job.
The board's general expenditure on tourist research and development in Rhyl, its contributions to information services and to the work of the North Wales Regional Tourism Council, and its spending on marketing and publicity all help the area, as they help other centres of tourism. I do not think that the importance of this help should be under-estimated.
The real background to all this, however, is that we have an economy which is in difficulties. A more buoyant economy benefits all parts of the country, including Rhyl, and including both industry and service industry. That is the real key to development in Rhyl and elsewhere. The solution lies, therefore, in the success of the Government's industrial strategy, in getting our economy buoyant once again with export-led manufacturing expansion. I hope that over the next few years we shall see industry developing as I have suggested, because I am equally certain that those general benefits will help Rhyl.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.